Immigration and Customs Enforcement has quietly reversed two controversial enforcement tactics that sparked chaotic arrests and legal challenges across the country, backing away from warrantless home entries and courthouse arrests that drew fierce opposition from judges, prosecutors, and lawmakers.

Federal Prosecutors Admit Major Policy Error

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton in Manhattan issued a remarkable letter expressing regret for defending ICE courthouse arrests based on a policy that never existed. Clayton blamed ICE legal teams who incorrectly informed his office that a Trump-era memo authorized immigration court arrests. The admission came after his office defended thousands of arrests outside immigration courtrooms where immigrants appeared for mandatory hearings. Clayton stated the error occurred due to agency attorney mistakes, marking an unusual public acknowledgment of federal enforcement overreach.

The DHS is quietly rolling back some of its controversial immigration enforcement policies, according to two senior DHS officials and two immigration attorneys who have seen the changes firsthand. https://t.co/LZtNMxRFyf

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 23, 2026

The policy reversal follows widespread criticism of ICE’s expanded enforcement powers. Last year, acting director Todd Lyons instructed officers to rely on internal agency permissions rather than court-issued warrants when entering homes. The Department of Homeland Security defended this approach in lengthy press releases, arguing administrative authority superseded traditional judicial oversight. Immigration advocacy groups filed multiple lawsuits challenging these practices as violations of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Courthouse Arrests Created Impossible Choices

Immigration courts operate under Department of Justice control, distinct from federal courts. More than 70 facilities nationwide handle deportation proceedings and asylum claims before immigration judges. After the administration took office, the Executive Office for Immigration Review directed judges to grant government motions dismissing immigrant cases immediately, creating vulnerability to arrest and removal. Immigrants faced an impossible decision: attend mandatory court hearings and risk immediate arrest, or skip hearings and face automatic deportation orders.

Legal Challenges Force Policy Retreat

Advocacy groups now ask federal judges to block courthouse arrests entirely, arguing ICE showed no evidence of reasoned decision-making when implementing the dramatic policy change. Their Thursday filing emphasized real-world harm: hundreds of people with families, jobs, and medical appointments arrested immediately upon leaving courtrooms. Manhattan emerged as a major flashpoint for these enforcement actions. The sharp decline in courthouse arrests signals ICE’s recognition that the legal foundation for these operations remains deeply flawed, though the agency has not issued official policy guidance confirming the changes.