The Justice Department informed a federal judge that ICE provided incorrect information during a legal battle over arrests at immigration courthouses.
The department acknowledged that a key policy memo it had used for months did not apply to those arrests. It attributed the mistake to “agency attorney error.”
In a letter dated March 24 to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan, federal prosecutors said they needed to retract parts of their filings and statements. They noted that the May 2025 ICE guidance they referenced “does not and has never authorized civil immigration arrests in or around immigration courthouses.”
The letter added that the government had made a “material mistaken statement of fact” while defending the Trump administration’s courthouse arrest policy.
The filing pointed to ICE as the source of the error. “We were specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests,” the government lawyers wrote.
2/ DOJ blaming ICE:
“This error, however, is not caused by a lack of diligence and care by the undersigned attorneys. The undersigned were specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests.”
“… agency attorney error …” pic.twitter.com/AYmLMQkaFW
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) March 25, 2026
They mentioned that ICE counsel had approved statements and briefs throughout the case. “Based on our discussions with ICE today, this regrettable error appears to have occurred due to agency attorney error,” the DOJ informed the court.
This issue arose in African Communities Together v. Lyons, a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by immigrant rights groups. The case centers on two Trump-era policies: one allowing ICE agents to make arrests at immigration courthouses, and another from the Executive Office for Immigration Review that, according to the plaintiffs, expedited the dismissal of deportation cases.
In earlier filings, the plaintiffs argued that the courthouse arrest policy overturned years of restrictions designed to encourage immigrants to attend mandatory hearings and to protect the court’s operations.
In September, Castel mostly denied a request for preliminary relief. After the government’s recent admission, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the implications went beyond a minor correction, since ICE continued making arrests while the case was ongoing.
The New York Civil Liberties Union informed the court that, in the months following the earlier decision, noncitizens were still arrested at hearings and often taken to detention centers far from their homes. Reports indicated that Castel later ordered the government to maintain records related to the case and the disputed memo, including communications between DOJ lawyers and ICE.
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, claimed that the court filing does not alter enforcement. In a statement reported by CBS News, DHS stressed, “There is no change in policy,” and added that the agency would continue to arrest people at immigration courts after their proceedings. The department stated, “Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”
The Justice Department expressed regret for the delay in making the correction. “We deeply regret that this error has come to light at this late stage after the parties have used significant resources and time to litigate this case,” the government stated. However, prosecutors also mentioned that the mistake was “not caused by a lack of diligence and care” from the DOJ attorneys who signed the letter.
The dispute arises as the administration continues to push its immigration agenda. Central to the case is whether arresting people as they come to court discourages others from attending, disrupts active cases, and affects how the courts operate. Even after distancing itself from the memo it once relied on, the government argues that it still has other legal justifications for the arrests.
