DOJ admits ICE error on courthouse arrests
The Department of Justice acknowledged it erroneously relied on an ICE memo that did not authorize civil immigration arrests in and around immigration courthouses—an admission surfaced in recent federal litigation. That concession directly undercuts the legal basis for past courthouse arrests and creates fresh grounds to challenge arrests or proceedings initiated under the misstated policy. (nbcnews.com, bloomberg.com)
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York filed a March 24, 2026 letter telling Judge P. Kevin Castel that it would withdraw portions of its briefs that had relied on the May 27, 2025 “2025 ICE Guidance” (ECF Nos. 39, 66, 70 and 74). (assets.bwbx.io) That March 24 filing included an internal March 19, 2026 email sent to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations personnel described as a “reminder that the May 27, 2025 Guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts,” which DOJ attorneys said they received for the first time on March 24. (assets.bwbx.io) The government told the court the September 12, 2025 opinion and order that rejected plaintiffs’ request for a stay “will need to be reconsidered and re‑briefed” because those rulings relied on the prior representations tied to the 2025 guidance. (assets.bwbx.io (caselaw.findlaw.com) The litigation is African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 25‑cv‑6366 (S.D.N.Y.), filed Aug. 1, 2025 by African Communities Together and The Door, with plaintiffs represented by NYCLU, ACLU and Make the Road New York on the docket. (clearinghouse.net (caselaw.findlaw.com) Bloomberg reports Justice Department lawyers described the issue as “agency attorney error” and said they had obtained approval from assigned ICE counsel before filing briefs and making the September 2, 2025 oral representations now being withdrawn. (bloomberg.com (assets.bwbx.io) Plaintiffs’ counsel and immigrant‑rights groups called the disclosure “extraordinary” and asked the court to revisit the September denial of a preliminary injunction, arguing the prior decision materially relied on the government’s now‑withdrawn factual assertions. (bloomberg.com (nbcnews.com)
