For nearly a year, the government argued in federal court that ICE had the authority to arrest immigrants inside immigration courts. That argument was wrong. The arrests are still happening.
What the Government Just Admitted
On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a letter with federal Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York City admitting it had made a “material mistaken statement of fact” in court — for nearly a year — when defending ICE’s practice of arresting immigrants inside immigration courthouses.
The admission is stunning in its scope. Since May 2025, DOJ attorneys had repeatedly cited an ICE memo as legal justification for agents to arrest people the moment they walked out of their immigration court hearings. That memo, it turns out, never applied to immigration courts at all.
“We deeply regret this error,” the DOJ letter reads.
The filing came as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit brought by two New York City immigrant advocacy organizations — African Communities Together and The Door — challenging what they described as a “sweeping, unprecedented campaign” of arresting noncitizens at their immigration court hearings.
How the Error Happened — and How Long It Lasted
The May 2025 ICE memo at the center of the controversy says agents can conduct civil immigration enforcement actions “in or near courthouses” when they have credible information that a targeted person will be present. DOJ attorneys used that memo as the cornerstone of their legal defense every time they appeared before Judge Castel.
The problem: the memo was written for federal, state, and local criminal courts — not immigration courts. Immigration courts are an entirely separate system, operating under the Department of Justice rather than the federal judiciary, and are dedicated exclusively to civil proceedings.
According to DOJ lawyers, they were “specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests.” They also said they discussed the matter with and obtained approval from ICE’s own legal team before filing every brief and making every oral argument in the case.
It was only on the day of the admission — March 25 — that DOJ attorneys received an internal ICE email dated March 19, which had been sent as a “reminder” to ICE personnel that the guidance “does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of their location.”
In other words, ICE’s own agency had already internally clarified its policy six days earlier — and the DOJ only found out about it the day it had to appear in court.
U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan who signed the letter, placed the blame squarely on ICE: “This regrettable error appears to have occurred because of agency attorney error.”
What Happened to the People Arrested Under the Wrong Policy
For nearly a year, Judge Castel had relied on the government’s representation — now acknowledged to be false — to deny civil rights groups’ requests to block the courthouse arrest policy. During those months, ICE continued arresting people at immigration courthouses across the country.
Many of those arrested were sent to detention facilities hundreds of miles away from their families, their lawyers, and their communities. An unknown number have already been deported.
The cases include people like Dylan Contreras, a 20-year-old Venezuelan student in New York City with no criminal history who was detained after a routine hearing while pursuing a green card. He was released this month — nearly a year after his arrest — but his case became a flashpoint for the broader debate over courthouse arrests.
Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who was himself arrested by ICE agents while escorting immigrants to their court hearings last year, called the admission “genuinely a bombshell.” He called on Congress to launch an investigation and said civil rights actions should be pursued “for every illegal abduction of immigrants trying to follow the rules and appear in court.”
The ACLU of New York, which represents the plaintiffs in the case, said the development’s implications are “far-reaching.” In their court filing, attorneys wrote that the government had used the incorrect policy to justify arrests that resulted in detention “often in facilities hundreds of miles away” — and that this continued for months after Judge Castel had initially allowed the policy to stand.
The Policy Hasn’t Changed
Here is the most important fact for anyone with an immigration hearing: despite the DOJ’s admission that the legal basis for courthouse arrests was wrong, the arrests are not stopping.
DHS issued a statement the same day the DOJ filed its letter: “There is no change in policy. We will continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings. Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”
ICE’s internal March 19 memo clarified that the May 2025 guidance doesn’t apply to immigration courts — but the government is now arguing it doesn’t need that memo to continue making arrests. DOJ attorneys made clear in their filing that withdrawing portions of their briefs “does not affect its arguments that ICE’s immigration courthouse arrests do not violate any so-called common-law privilege against courthouse arrests.”
In other words: the specific legal justification was wrong, but the government believes it has other grounds to keep doing what it’s been doing.
What This Means for Immigrants Attending Court
The practical situation for immigrants with pending hearings has not changed as a result of this admission. ICE agents may still be present at immigration courthouses. The fear that has kept thousands of people away from their own hearings — contributing directly to the mass in absentia deportation orders described in courts like San Francisco’s this week — has not been addressed or resolved.
A federal judge in San Jose issued an order on Christmas Eve 2025 halting courthouse arrests in the Northern California region. That order stands. But it does not apply nationally, and in most jurisdictions across the country, the practice continues.
If you have an immigration hearing, you should not skip it. Missing a hearing results in a removal order in absentia — an automatic deportation order that can bar you from applying for legal status for ten years. Appearing, even in a difficult environment, remains the legally safer choice.
Go with an attorney if at all possible. If you cannot afford one, contact legal aid organizations in your area before your hearing date.
The Bigger Pattern
This admission does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of immigration enforcement that courts across the country have repeatedly found to be legally deficient — from the mandatory detention policy rejected by hundreds of federal judges, to the mass in absentia deportation orders issued in San Francisco this week, to the homicide ruling in the death of a detainee at Camp East Montana.
In each case, the government has moved fast, imposed consequences, and then — when the legal foundation crumbles — argued it can keep going anyway on other grounds. People have been deported, detained, separated from their families, and in some cases have died in the interim.
“It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court,” said Amy Belsher, director of immigrants’ rights litigation at the New York ACLU.
Sources
- Alex Woodward, ICE Mistakenly Told Agents to Arrest People in Immigration Courts, DOJ Admits, The Independent, March 25, 2026. https://www.independent.co.uk
- NPR, DOJ Admits ICE Courthouse Arrests Relied on Erroneous Information, March 26, 2026. https://www.npr.org
- CNN Politics, Trump Administration Admits Error in Lawsuit Over Immigration Court Arrests, March 26, 2026. https://www.cnn.com
- NBC News, DOJ Says It Erroneously Relied on ICE Memo to Justify Immigration Courthouse Arrests, March 26, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com
- ABC News, DOJ Says It Made ‘Error’ in Justifying Immigration Court Arrests With ICE Memo, March 26, 2026. https://abcnews.com
- The Washington Times, DOJ Says ICE Gave Court Wrong Policy on Arrests at Immigration Courthouses, March 26, 2026. https://www.washingtontimes.com
- ACLU of New York, statement by Amy Belsher, director of immigrants’ rights litigation, March 26, 2026. https://www.nyclu.org
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, African Communities Together et al. v. Trump Administration, letter from U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton to Judge P. Kevin Castel, March 25, 2026.
- ICE internal memo from assistant director of field operations Liana Castano to all Enforcement and Removal officers, March 19, 2026 — cited in court documents.
- Alice Finno, Hundreds Ordered Deported in Absentia at S.F. Immigration Court, Mission Local, March 20, 2026. https://missionlocal.org
