Garrison Davis

like even to begin with and so what we have here is a bad mischaracterization of a report of like an incomplete analysis from a not very good piece of forensic technology that's being used to do conspiracy because it makes money yeah we will certainly follow this case as it actually reaches trial as there will be many interesting things that come out through the course of that trial

All right.

So let's begin by talking about immigration with this.

Brad Lander more or less broke this right on his social media accounts.

The United States Department of Justice via the United States Attorney's Office in New York has admitted that it was misguided by ICE attorneys in asserting that they could detain migrants.

In immigration court, there was a memo, right, an ICE guidance memo that they relied on.

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?