Trump’s ICE Instantly TRAP THEMSELVES with COURT VIOLATION!!!

追加: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF. We had a breathtaking win for democracy and immigration rights that happened in New York in Judge Castle's uh uh chambers or courtroom with a new ruling that was obtained through the hard work of the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, which now based on this opinion and order will block ICE from trying to make arrests inside and around immigration. courts in New York City.

[00:00:35]Some that I know well. I know that I know that Federal Plaza, Varic Street, and Broadway area. Well, and now instead of having somebody show up for like a mass calendar call thinking they're going to get justice and instead being arrested and whisked away without due process, that comes to an end now. All because of a confession ultimately by the Department of Justice. This is rare for this Department of Justice to admit a mistake that they had a that there was no internal memo that allowed for such arrest in civil enforcement proceedings.

[00:01:11]They had to concede that to the judge and then that sort of turned the whole case around. It's a fascinating case about procedure, hard work, lawyering, sleuththing, and and ultimately a Department of Justice that had to confess. And I want to brief our audience with Amy Belchure who's at the New York Civil Liberties Union, the director of the Immigration Rights Litigation there. Hi Amy.

[00:01:37]>> Hi. Good afternoon.

[00:01:39]>> Did you think uh six or seven months ago you'd be on Legal AF talking about a win and a confession by the Department of Justice?

[00:01:48]>> Um no, I I did not. Um, but I am so happy to be here and to be able to celebrate this really important ruling.

[00:01:56]Um, that's hopefully going to allow many, many people in New York to attend their immigration court proceedings without fear of arrest.

[00:02:03]>> So, let's brief our audience. Let's back it up so in case they walked in late to the movie, so to speak, they know what happened. Talk about what the policy, the nonpolicy policy was that the ACLU and the NYCLU uh threw a couple of plaintiffs, one African communities together. one ultimately the door that had standing what happened and what happened in the case that wasn't it was kind of going south for you guys for a while until it didn't talk about that >> sure so you know I think we have to start with the decades old practice that the government had that ICE had of not making arrest at immigration court so since its inception non-citizens could go to immigration court could attend their mandatory court hearings without fear that they would be arrested there they knew that they for the vast majority of them, they knew that they could show up, have their day in court, and go home safely. Um, that all changed in spring of last year when the administration began making sweeping courthouse arrests. So, ICE would show up in large numbers, stalk the hallways of the immigration courts, and grab people as they were exiting their hearings with no notice, um, no opportunity to, you know, make child care arrangements, tell their work, tell their families what was happening to them, um, and effectively disappear.

[00:03:18]many of them for many many you know days, weeks, months while um they they sorted out where they were eventually going to be detained. Um a really horrible and terrifying new policy. So we immediately went to court on behalf of these two plaintiffs and challenged that policy. Said it was unjustified.

[00:03:36]The government under the prior policy under the Biden administration had actually explained this. They said we're not going to make arrests at immigration court because if we do that then people won't show up. it's going to deter them from having um their day in court, from being able to access the courts, and we want them to come to court. We want them to resolve their cases. Um and they wrote that down. So, when this administration radically changed course, enacted this new unprecedented, truly terrifying policy, um they didn't explain it. And our position was always that this was never explained. They never said why the prior policy wasn't working or why that really core principle animating it that it would deter people from showing up um wasn't important anymore to the administration.

[00:04:19]They never explained that. So we went to court asked for a preliminary ruling and the judge said, "Well, the government has this memo here about courthouse arrests that says it's safer for them to make those arrests at the courthouse."

[00:04:32]And the government said, "Yeah, yeah, that's our justification. It's safer.

[00:04:36]it's safer >> safer right >> for our for our officers because people go through metal detectors to enter that building and also you know in these sanctuary jurisdictions in places where local law enforcement isn't cooperating with ICE um you know we really need to find new locations to arrest people um so those were the only reasons in this memo that the government put before the court and said were there reasons for the new policy we always said those that memo doesn't apply it doesn't talk about immigration courts doesn't seem to have anything to do with it and at bottom doesn't talk about the deterrence, the chill, the chill that people were experiencing. Um, which by the way, we've seen since the policy was enacted in last spring. People just aren't showing up to their immigration court proceedings because they don't want to face an unlawful arrest there. Um, really obvious that that was what was always going to happen here and the government never accounted for it. So, the judge though said that those seemed like facially okay reasons in the memo.

[00:05:27]Um, denied us preliminary relief. And in the meanwhile, six months later, the parties have fully briefed summary judgement. um we you know we we're awaiting final decisions before the court and then the government submits this really shocking letter that says actually that memo we told you had all of our reasons for the new policy that never applied to immigration courts that was about other >> courtes let's pause right there >> you're on the you're on sort of not I don't want to say a losing end because things happen temporary restraining orders preliminary injunction final judgments things can change in the course of a case as you know well as a litigator and I do too. But, you know, senior status Judge Castle who's uh been around since the George Bush era, you know, he's not he's sort of like, I get it. I see the safety issues. And then you get, let me read, we're going to put it up on the screen, too. We'll put it in our Substack for people to read. On a March 24th, 2026 letterhead, US Department of Justice now filed on the docket. Uh, dear judge, we write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court and plaintiffs. And by the way, not just once. Specifically this morning, Council from US Immigration and Custom Enforcement, ICE, informed the undersign of the following that the memorandum entitled Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or near courouses dated May 27, 2025, which the government relied on in presenting its arguments in this case, does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near Executive Office for Immigration Review. immigration courts.

[00:07:11]Uh in light of the fact that it does not apply, the government withdraws those portions of its brief docket numbers 39,66, 70, and 74 and the statement they made in open court relied on that memo. I got to tell you, in my 35 years, I've had to correct something maybe once or twice.

[00:07:35]Uh this is a lot of crowing going on in this letter. Right.

[00:07:39]It's the entire theory of their defense.

[00:07:41]It's the only defense that they had to this claim. Um, and you know what's not in that letter is the enormous amount of harm that has happened to people in the interim in those, you know, many, many months since the court denied our clients preliminary relief. PE, you know, dozens, if not hundreds of people have been arrested at their immigration court proceedings in New York. And and there's no accounting for that. There's no apology for that. That's a very very good that's a very very good point because what we what we like to focus on in legal AF in our audience is the human dimension that often gets ignored with all sorts of jibberjabber and legal phrases and latinate briefing and there's human beings like when we talk about for instance reproductive rights on legal AF we say the delay that just happened there are tens of thousands of women are who are not being able to make an a decision about their reproductive lives because of this paperwork.

[00:08:35]>> Yeah, it was really heart-wrenching hearing these stories day in day out of people being arrested at their immigration court proceedings knowing that that policy is so unlawful and and you know that we were right all along.

[00:08:47]It's just really um you know I think consistent with the way that ICE has behaved, this administration has behaved towards non-citizens, but but um truly terrible nonetheless. Have you seen I'm going to read from the from the order of the judge as well in a moment. Have you seen any change now that uh Bavino is out and Todd Lions is effectively out and and uh Christine Gnome is out and Mark Wayne Mullen is in. Are you seeing any change at all that would any a glimmer of hope about how ICE is ICE or its lawyers in courtrooms? um in courtrooms.

[00:09:28]Interesting, you know. Yeah, we No, absolutely not. And and and I'll give you an example. Um we went back to the court after the government admitted to their material misrepresentations, many material misrepresentations on the record, and said, "You need to go back and look at your your um denial of preliminary relief in this case." The judge agreed, set new briefing schedule. We made our same arguments essentially. And um this week on Monday, the judge issued a short decision agreeing with us and saying yes, they they have no justification.

[00:10:04]They have really not even acknowledged that they're they're changing their policy to immigration courts. Um although they most certainly have. Um and then the very next day, yesterday, we got a series of frantic reports in the morning that ICE had made a courthouse arrest at 26 Federal Plaza in downtown Manhattan. um in flagrant our view violation of the court's order. Um we've asked the government to explain how it complies with the court's order and they've been unable to explain that to us satisfactorily. So so we're we're trying to figure out next steps there, but I think this is another example, you know, of of ICE showing real disregard for um what the courts are telling them the law is.

[00:10:43]>> So you have a violation of the order and your group is deciding how do you bring this to the to the judge's attention, right?

[00:10:50]>> Yeah. Uh I mean we are still talking to the government about what if any justification they have for this. Um but you know if we don't if we don't get a satisi a satisfying answer from them we'll have to go back to the court to enforce the the order um violated within 24 hours of of its issuance.

[00:11:06]>> Well that's a very good example of how there's no change on the street or in the courtrooms. Here's what the judge wrote on Monday. On March 24th, 2026, the court received a letter from two assistant United States attorneys for the district who wrote, and you know, we've read it out loud the respectful and regrettable attempt to correct a material mistake. The letter withdrew portions of four briefs and statements made at oral argument. These statements went to the heart of a motion to stay under section 705 of the administrative procedures act. Defendants's letter announced an abrupt change of position.

[00:11:40]I think the judge is being kind here. it advised and we went over the quote of what's been advised and then the judge goes through the arrest policies.

[00:11:49]basically says based on that full briefing and the new uh material mistaken statement of fact he's going to uh apply a new standard apply the standards and he's going to modify his order and then to the extent that they tried to fix the policy the judge actually found I found that there's no policy at all because your attempt to fix it after the fact actually didn't work either. So now it sounds like the judge is starting to get on your side with this shell game or this uh bait and switch that ICE is trying to do in front of in front of him uh in front of a federal judge.

[00:12:27]>> Right. And and the core of our claims are that they're under the Administrative Procedure Act and they require the government to have an explanation for a change in policy like this. Um and you can't provide that that explanation post talk. can't after the fact go say, "Oh, I I've come up with one and judge." Um, right. So, now that they've taken away the the the only written explanation that they ever provided to court, they don't have one.

[00:12:51]There just isn't one out there.

[00:12:53]>> And that's what the judge noted. Um, so he has ruled in his conclusion here, uh, the court orders as follows. the January 21st, 2025 interim guidance and the May 27th, 2025 final guidance are stayed in so far as they rescended the interim guidance uh about things in or near the courouses from 2021.

[00:13:18]So, no done block and they're and and they're applying it to the three principally serving the members of the door. What is the door? So people know the plaintiffs here.

[00:13:31]>> Sure. So the door is a nonprofit um organization that serves youth in New York City primarily. Um so they help um young people who are looking um they serve a lot of young people who are non-citizens who are looking to um obtain immigration relief. And many of their clients um many of them members of the door it's a membership based organization were going to court and getting arrested there. um including really young people, 19 year olds, people who had just turned 18 who had um relief like uh special immigrant juvenile status, other forms of relief, but ICE um was truly indiscriminate in how they were conducting these arrests and and swept up a lot of their members.

[00:14:12]We'll put links below, but tell our audience how uh Amy, if they want to be more involved with the New York Civil Liberties Union or the American Civil Liberties Union, what can they do from their side of the screen to help the cause?

[00:14:27]>> Sure. Well, join us. You can become a member of the NYCLU, the Night Group, or the ACLU. Um we always welcome more support in that way. um and and to get out there. I think um you know, the last few protests I've at least attended have been really powerful and important and motivating. So, I think I think that's it.

[00:14:46]>> Yeah, that's that's what we push here.

[00:14:49]Get involved. Pick organizations that align with your values, become a supporter of them, and then mobilize the vote. I mean, that's really if you want to change policy, you got to change the policy makers.

[00:15:02]>> Absolutely. And and I'll say one more way to support which is um a huge source of information we had in this case was from people who were doing court observations. So everyday people, you don't have to be a lawyer, were going to the immigration court and they're still there. They're still going. Um and they're sitting with people who are waiting for their hearings and trying to to observe what's happening for them. Um there are lots of groups that organize those types of um court observations. I would look for for one in your area.

[00:15:30]immigration courts are are in many major cities. Um, but that's been a hugely important source of of information on the ground and a huge source of comfort to people who don't understand what's happening to them and and are confused by why they're being detained when they're following all of the rules.

[00:15:44]>> That's a very good point about and I, you know, I'm going to start adding that to my list of things for people that want to get involved. being in a courtroom and observing and then you know with a keeping a little memo or a little book and then reporting it back to organizations so they know what's really going on in courtrooms is so important you know bring you know bring a bring a lunch if you can still bring in food I don't even know you can anymore sit in the back used to be able to sit in the back and watch and then report and that is such a great we see so many American citizens taking to the streets and now you're recommending to the courouses to blow the whistle figuratively and otherwise uh against, you know, unconstitutional and violate unconstitutional acts and violations of our civil rights and civil liberties. So important because our our audience gets frustrated because they hear the information and and they want to they want to employ it. They want to put it to good use, but they and they want to be useful. And I think you just gave them a a great additional way to do that. Amy Belchshire, thank you so much for joining us from the New York Civil Liberties Union. Uh, director of the immigration rights litigation in there, giving us an update on a on a a great turn of events that's happened in New York. I'm sure will be a blueprint to be used in uh around the country. Thank you for being on legal a for those that want to support her work and the work of her organization. The links are in the notes below. So until my next report, take a moment, hit the free subscribe button here on Legal AF and support our pro-democracy project. Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hottake, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument. Come over to the Substack.

[00:17:28]You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from legal a are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.