A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve all records related to immigration courthouse arrests after the Justice Department conceded it made a significant factual error in its legal defense. The admission centers on a 2025 memorandum from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that the government had cited as justification for arresting migrants as they appeared for their immigration hearings.
Faulty Legal Foundation
In a filing on Wednesday, Justice Department attorneys informed U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel that they had been given incorrect information by an ICE lawyer regarding the scope of the agency's internal guidance. Prosecutors stated the May 2025 memo "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near Executive Office for Immigration Review ('EOIR') immigration courts." This revelation directly undermines the government's position in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the controversial arrest practice.
The admission carries substantial legal weight because Judge Castel had previously denied a request to block the courthouse arrests, specifically citing the ICE memorandum as part of his reasoning. The government's error could now force a reconsideration of that decision and potentially unwind the entire case.
Contradictory Enforcement Actions
Despite the admission, prosecutors maintained that the core of their legal argument remains valid. However, attorneys representing migrants immediately seized on the development as potentially case-altering. "For over a year, ICE has claimed that a 2025 memorandum authorized and justified their devastating policy of conducting mass arrests at immigration courts," said Amy Belsher, director of immigrants' rights litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union. "In today's shocking revelation, the government is now admitting that this document — which the Court relied on to deny our clients relief — does not and never has authorized these courthouse arrests."
The filings include a March 19 email sent to ICE agents explicitly reminding them that the memo does not permit arrests at immigration courts, though it does authorize them at regular federal, state, and local courthouses. This internal communication highlights confusion within the agency about its own enforcement boundaries.
A Pattern of Legal Challenges
This development occurs amid broader legal scrutiny of Trump administration immigration policies. Similar confrontations between federal judges and executive branch agencies have become increasingly common, as seen when a federal judge dismissed a DOJ subpoena citing political pressure, and when judges rebuked the DOJ over procedural chaos threatening criminal cases.
Belsher characterized the situation as "yet again another example of ICE's brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country." She added, "It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court."
Courtroom Ambush Tactics
The practice of courthouse arrests has drawn particular criticism for what migrant attorneys describe as deceptive tactics. During summer operations, ICE prosecutors would voluntarily offer to dismiss deportation cases, only to have officers waiting to arrest migrants as they exited the courtroom—often leaving individuals believing the government had abandoned its removal efforts.
"Hundreds, if not thousands, of noncitizens... are dutifully attending their immigration hearings across the country only to have the government summarily dismiss those proceedings, abruptly arrest and detain them, and seek their immediate removal," attorneys wrote when filing the case last August. They argued these practices "undermine the rule of law and the integrity of immigration courts by effectively turning mandatory court hearings into traps."
The legal challenge now enters uncertain territory with the government's foundational document discredited. Judge Castel's preservation order ensures all communications and records related to the ICE memo and its interpretation will remain available as the court reconsiders the merits of the case. This development adds to growing tensions between the judiciary and immigration enforcement agencies, mirroring conflicts seen in other policy areas where bipartisan legal coalitions have formed to counter administration initiatives.
