In a striking rebuke, a federal judge in Minnesota has accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of violating nearly 100 court orders in January alone, highlighting systemic noncompliance within the Justice Department under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. This revelation has sparked a wave of judicial threats to hold government officials in contempt, underscoring the tension between the judiciary and executive branch over immigration enforcement.
The issue came to light when Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the District of Minnesota compiled a list of 74 cases where ICE had failed to adhere to judicial directives, stating that the agency ‘has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.’ His order, issued in late January, detailed numerous instances where immigrants ordered released remained detained, sometimes for days beyond court deadlines. This pattern of disobedience has been described by judges as ‘willful’ and ‘not tenable,’ leading to repeated showdowns in courtrooms across the state.
Specific cases illustrate the severity of the problem. For example, Judge John R. Tunheim found that the government ‘willfully violated’ his orders in the case of a Salvadoran national, who was not returned to Minnesota as mandated, delaying his release by four days. Similarly, Judge Donovan Frank threatened contempt proceedings when ICE agents failed to confirm the release of a Mexican national who had been injured and hospitalized, with records suggesting mistreatment by federal agents. These incidents are part of a broader trend where judges have had to use strong language to compel compliance.
The context for these violations is President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge, an immigration enforcement blitz that has led to over 400 cases in Minnesota last month. Judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents have expressed frustration, noting that the pace of litigation has overwhelmed government attorneys. Assistant U.S. Attorney Friedrich Siekert admitted in court that ‘the civil division does not have the resources to handle this right now,’ pointing to systemic capacity issues within the Justice Department.
In response, judges have taken unprecedented steps. Judge Laura Provinzino warned that if violations continue, the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota would need to appear personally to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt. Other judges, like Susan Nelson and Eric Tostrud, have set hearings for potential sanctions, though many threats have been diffused after compliance was achieved. The situation has become so routine that David Cole, a Georgetown Law professor, noted it’s ‘very rare for federal government officials to face contempt sanctions, yet it’s become almost routine under this administration.’
The implications extend beyond individual cases, raising questions about the rule of law and the balance of power. Natalie Baldassarre, a Justice Department spokesperson, defended the administration, attacking ‘rogue judges’ and attributing the detention levels to border security policies. However, immigration attorneys like David Wilson see the judicial rebuke as a ‘boiling point’ for a court system frustrated by persistent noncompliance. This standoff could lead to more formal contempt proceedings or sanctions if the pattern continues.
Looking ahead, the judiciary’s patience appears to be wearing thin. Judge Schiltz has warned that future noncompliance may require personal appearances by ICE head Todd Lyons or other officials. With hundreds of cases pending and resources strained, the Justice Department faces increasing pressure to rectify its compliance issues. This episode not only highlights challenges in immigration enforcement but also tests the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable, with potential ramifications for future administrations and legal precedents.
