So proud of our team at @youthlaw.bsky.social, our co-counsel, the advocates across the country working tirelessly for these families, and especially proud of Neha Desai. Children deserve to be living safely in their communities. These policies are outrageous.
![Dear Judge Castel:
We represent Plaintiffs African Communities Together and The Door, and their members, in this case challenging the government's policies of targeting noncitizens at their immigration court proceedings, depriving them of their right to seek relief from removal in regular proceedings, and subjecting them to immediate arrest. We write in response to the government's extraordinary letter dated March 24, 2026, revealing a "material mistaken statement of fact" at the core of the government's defense of its Immigration Court Arrest Policy, ECF 77 at 1-months after the conclusion of summary judgment briefing in this litigation, and after that false statement of fact was relied upon by this Court to deny Plaintiffs preliminary relief on their challenge to that policy.
Specifically, the government now concedes the May 2025 ICE memorandum-which it previously asserted authorized arrests at immigration courthouses, provided guidance minimizing the harms of such arrests, and explained the agency's reasoning for abandoning a prior policy largely prohibiting such arrests-in fact has never applied to such arrests. See id. Accordingly, it further concedes the government's primary defense to Plaintiffs' claim that the Immigration Court Arrest Policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act must be "withdrawn]," and it states that the portion of this Court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion to stay the policy, "which relied on the Government's prior [false] representations regarding the applicability of' the memorandum, will
"need to be reconsidered." Id. at 1-2 (citing government briefs filed at ECF 39, 66, 70, and 74; the government's Sept. 2, 2025, oral argument, ECF 62; and this Court's Sept. 12, 2025, opinion and order,
ECF 51).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreifkuwtj3mtn2ivmph2bvoy2yi3vum6jar552khdlvxwzzrtzz5bmy)
![Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 1637 Filed 08/15/25 Page 2 of 20 Page
ID #:57826
1
2
3
4
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Flores Settlement
Agreement and to Dissolve the Court's 2019 Injunction. [Doc. ## 1567 ("MTT").] The motion is fully briefed. [Doc. ## 1584 ("Opp."), 1612 ("Reply").] The Court held a hearing on the motion on August 8, 2025. Defendants fail to identify any new facts or 5 law that warrant the termination of the Flores Settlement Agreement at this time.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants' MTT.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreihoebrtvddzsc34562go2fl5p7vv5eqjesb7afi6wyweq5iaowv4a)
![16
Throughout the entire history of this case, the Parties have understood that "it is necessary ... for the New Regulations to follow [Administrative Procedure Act] rulemaking procedures." Flores v. Barr, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 924. This understanding is evidenced by the fact that every time Defendants have attempted to promulgate a rule incorporating the FSA-in 1998, 2019, and 2024 they have always gone through the traditional APA rulemaking process. See also FSA 4 9 ("[T]he INS shall initiate action to publish the relevant and substantive terms of this Agreement as a Service regulation") (emphasis added). Termination of the FSA cannot occur until Defendants have published final, federal regulations implementing the FSA. FSA 99; FSA (as amended) 4 40.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that neither DHS nor HHS is yet in sufficiently
substantial compliance to warrant termination of the FSA under Rule 60(b)(5).®](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreiah77gqf6ihkxrlfi5ho7i4gfjkpiy3lfml55y67do5vvvb5hxibq)
