Garrison Davis

The memo they now say should have applied to other courts, but not to the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

The declaration came in a New York court suit filed by the ACLU on behalf of advocacy groups, which had challenged the courthouse arrests.

Those have been happening for about a year now, as I'm sure most people are aware.

In the filing, the USDOJ said, quote, this error, however, was not caused by a lack of diligence and care by the undersigned attorneys.

The undersigned were specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests.

In addition, we discussed and obtained the approval of a signed ICE counsel before filing every brief in this case and making any oral representations to the court and the plaintiffs.

We also transmitted copies of the court's orders, transcript of the September 2nd, 2025 oral argument,

and plaintiff's filings to ICE counsel throughout its litigation.

Based on our discussions with ICE today, this regrettable error appears to have occurred because of agency attorney error.

Is it what you've got there is a U.S.

attorney basically saying like, not my fault, ICE attorney's fault?

relatively unusual statement, right?

Obviously, we've seen them attempt to kind of split the executive branch before in these legal filings.

We saw this happen in some of those cases in Minnesota, and then the judge rejected that, right?

The ACLU, in a letter of response, noted the wide-reaching consequences here, and it's asked for 14 days to consider what to do next and file a motion.

The memo in question, right, this ICE guidance memo said that, quote, civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information that leads them to believe the targeted aliens, alien brackets S, is or will be present in a specific location.

It said those were permissible, right?

DHS, however, has said that there will not be a change in their policy going forward.

it's unlikely that they will stop until they are told by a court to do so, right?

So what it seems here is that the ICE attorney has, for some reason, reconsidered, perhaps because of this ongoing case in New York, what they had said there.