For nearly a year, the U.S. government defended the practice of arresting immigrants at courthouses using a legal memo that never applied to those courts in the first place. On Tuesday, the Department of Justice acknowledged the error in a letter to a federal judge in New York.
A May 2025 ICE memorandum authorized detentions at ordinary courts — federal, state, and municipal. Immigration courts were never included. Those courts fall under DOJ’s own jurisdiction, not DHS.
The distinction matters. That same memo was the legal foundation the government cited in court to justify the arrest policy. It was the basis on which Judge Kevin Castel, in the fall of 2025, denied advocates’ request for an injunction to stop the arrests.
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton blamed ICE lawyers. He said they assured DOJ that the memo covered immigration courts — and that DOJ had cleared every filing and every oral argument with them throughout the case.
The admission didn’t come voluntarily. It came because a lawsuit brought by African Communities Together and The Door has been working its way through New York courts since last year.
In the months the policy has been in effect, hundreds of people have been detained, according to the ACLU of New York — both undocumented immigrants and those here legally. Many were sent to detention facilities hundreds of miles from home. Some have already been deported.
The pattern is consistent: a judge closes a case so a person can apply for asylum. ICE agents are waiting at the exit.
DOJ is now withdrawing portions of its filings. The case will need to be reheard.
But DHS has no intention of changing course. Its press office was unequivocal: arrests at immigration courts will continue.
What It Means
For immigrants right now, nothing has changed. The arrests are ongoing.
But legally, the government’s position has been undermined. Judge Castel may revisit his earlier ruling — because it rested on a document that turned out to be irrelevant. If he does, courthouse arrests at immigration courts could be halted nationwide.
That would set a precedent. A ruling in the New York case would affect every immigration court in the country, including San Francisco.
Immigration attorneys are advising clients to bring a lawyer to all hearings, not to sign any documents without consultation, and to know their rights if detained.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and policies may change. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for guidance on your specific situation.