ICE Deception Exposed as Agency Wrongly Applied Courthouse Arrest Policy for a Year, DOJ Filing Reveals

Newly filed documents from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York reveal that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) misled the public, courts, and prosecutors for over a year regarding its authority to make arrests at immigration courts.

According to the March 24, 2026 filing, ICE incorrectly applied its May 27, 2025 memorandum on civil immigration enforcement at 26 Federal Plaza and other Executive Office for Immigration Review court locations. The revelation comes in the ongoing case African Communities Together v. Lyons (25-cv-06366-PKC), which challenges the agency's civil enforcement practices.

Background on the Guidance and Legal Challenge

ICE's 2025 memorandum, formally titled 'Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses,' was intended to set limits on enforcement activities near courthouses. In filings and oral arguments in September 2025, the government cited the guidance to justify civil immigration arrests at court facilities. The plaintiffs, African Communities Together and The Door, argued that such actions exceeded ICE's authority and violated administrative procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case has been closely watched as a test of ICE's civil enforcement powers in judicial settings.

DOJ Filing Details and Withdrawal of Claims

In the letter submitted to District Judge P. Kevin Castel, Assistant United States Attorneys Tomoko Onozawa and Jeffrey Oestericher stated that ICE informed them that the 2025 guidance never applied to immigration court arrests.

As posted by politician Brad Lander, the DOJ letter attaches a 19 March 2026 memorandum sent to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations staff clarifying the guidance does not apply to immigration courts, regardless of location.

As a result, the government withdrew portions of four briefs filed in the case, including ECF Nos. 39, 66, 70, and 74, which had relied on the guidance. The filing also noted that statements made at the 2 September 2025 oral argument would need correction.

The DOJ stressed that the error resulted from agency attorney miscommunication rather than a lack of diligence by court-appointed attorneys representing the government.

Implications for the Case

The revelation may affect previous judicial findings and necessitate reconsideration of court orders that relied on ICE's misrepresentation.

While the withdrawal of claims regarding the 2025 guidance does not impact ICE's broader arguments on the EOIR Dismissal Policy or the legality of courthouse arrests, plaintiffs may now have an opportunity to challenge the agency's actions based on accurate guidance.

The DOJ informed plaintiffs' counsel of the error during a video conference on the same day the filing was made, and plaintiffs are expected to respond promptly on the docket.

Public and Legal Significance

The correction exposes a significant lapse in communication within ICE, highlighting how agency guidance can be misapplied for extended periods.

Legal experts note that courthouse arrests have raised civil liberties concerns, and the filing may influence broader scrutiny of ICE enforcement policies in judicial contexts. The case underscores the importance of accurate legal representations in federal court and the potential consequences when enforcement agencies provide incorrect information to the judiciary.

Supporting Evidence and Timeline

Key documents attached to the filing include the 19 March 2026 ICE memorandum and prior court briefs that relied on the 2025 guidance. The timeline shows a year-long period between the original memorandum in May 2025, September 2025 oral arguments, and the March 2026 correction by the Department of Justice. The filing explicitly acknowledges the significant resources expended by both parties and the court in addressing challenges based on now-withdrawn guidance.