The U.S. Department of Justice has acknowledged a critical factual error in a high-stakes legal battle over immigration enforcement, conceding that information it relied on in court filings was incorrect—potentially reshaping the outcome of the case.
In a letter submitted to a federal judge, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton admitted that government lawyers had presented a “material mistaken statement of fact” tied to policies governing arrests near immigration courts. The revelation centers on guidance issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which the government had repeatedly cited as justification for courthouse arrests.
According to the filing, ICE informed federal attorneys that a May 2025 memorandum—previously described as applying broadly to courthouse enforcement—“does not and has never applied” to immigration courts overseen by the executive branch. That distinction is significant because the government had relied on the policy as a cornerstone defense in litigation challenging arrest practices at those locations.
The admission was delivered to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who had earlier denied a request to block the arrest practices. His earlier ruling was partly based on the now-disputed interpretation of ICE guidance.
“We write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the Government made to the Court and Plaintiffs. Specifically, this morning, counsel from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement informed the undersigned of the following: the memorandum entitled Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses, dated May 27, 2025 – which the Government relied on in presenting its arguments in this case and referred to as the ‘2025 ICE Guidance’ – does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near Executive Office for Immigration Review immigration courts,” the letter stated.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by immigrant advocacy groups, including The Door and African Communities Together. They argue that federal authorities have been using immigration court hearings as a setup for arrests—effectively turning required legal appearances into enforcement opportunities.
Their complaint challenges the practices of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts. Unlike traditional courts in the judicial branch, EOIR operates under executive authority, with judges appointed by the U.S. attorney general.
At the center of the dispute is a May 2025 memo attributed to then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. While the document advises officers to avoid enforcement actions in or near courthouses—especially in non-criminal settings—it does not explicitly authorize arrests at immigration courts, contradicting the government’s earlier claims.
Despite that guidance, plaintiffs say arrests have continued. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs, sharply criticized the government’s reversal, emphasizing the broader consequences.
“[T]hat false statement of fact was relied upon by this Court to deny Plaintiffs preliminary relief on their challenge to that policy,” the ACLU noted in a response filing. “[T]he implications of this development are far-reaching,” the group added, pointing to continued arrests that have led to detainees being transferred far from their communities.
The DOJ, in its letter, placed responsibility for the error on ICE, describing it as an “agency attorney error” rather than a failure by its own legal team. Officials said they had relied on assurances from ICE counsel throughout the litigation process and had coordinated closely on all filings and court arguments.
“We deeply regret that this error has come to light at this late stage, after the parties have expended significant resources and time to litigate this case and this Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ challenge to the 2025 ICE Guidance. This error, however, was not caused by a lack of diligence and care by the undersigned attorneys,” the letter stated.
The acknowledgment could reopen key legal questions, with the DOJ indicating that the case may need to be reconsidered on its merits. A motion for reconsideration is now expected as both sides reassess their arguments in light of the corrected facts.
Read More: Judge Asked to Block Trump Name on Kennedy Center
