US admits error in ICE policy used for court arrests case

The US Department of Justice informed a federal court that it had mistakenly relied on an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo to justify arrests at immigration courts, according to a report by CNN. The admission came in an ongoing case contesting enforcement actions carried out during proceedings involving non-citizens.

Government acknowledges factual error

In a letter submitted to Judge Kevin Castel, US Attorney Jay Clayton conceded that the government had made a “material mistaken statement of fact.” He clarified that the May 2025 ICE guidance referenced in earlier filings did not apply to civil immigration enforcement near immigration courts, contradicting prior representations made to the court.

Clayton stated that the Justice Department was informed by ICE legal counsel that the memo addressed enforcement in or around courthouses more broadly, rather than immigration courts specifically, which operate under a distinct jurisdiction.

Legal filings to be withdrawn

Following the discovery, the government said it would withdraw portions of its legal arguments and statements presented during earlier hearings that had relied on the misinterpreted guidance. “We deeply regret that this error has come to light at this late stage,” Clayton wrote, noting the significant time and resources already invested in the litigation process.

Civil rights groups raise concerns

Organizations including the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the implications of the admission could be far-reaching. In their submission to the court, they said immigration arrests continued even after earlier rulings, leading to the detention of individuals attending court hearings, often transferred to facilities far from their communities.

Debate over enforcement practices

The lawsuit, initially filed last year, challenges the legality of arresting non-citizens during immigration court appearances under the administration of Donald Trump. Critics argue that such actions undermine judicial processes and deter individuals from complying with legal requirements, while authorities maintain that enforcement remains within federal authority.