“ICE laughs at and ignores orders from federal judges; since the Department of Justice is also complicit, how can compliance be forced?” — Steve
Hi Steve,
We got an answer, of sorts, this week from Minnesota’s chief federal trial judge.
The judge, Patrick Schiltz, had issued an order on Jan. 14 that told the government to give an immigrant a bond hearing or release him within seven days. Seven days passed without a hearing or release. The government violated the order.
On Monday, the Republican-appointed judge took what he called the “extraordinary step” of ordering the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, to appear at a hearing Friday, to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for violating the Jan. 14 order.
“The Court acknowledges that ordering the head of a federal agency to personally appear is an extraordinary step, but the extent of ICE’s violation of court orders is likewise extraordinary, and lesser measures have been tried and failed,” Schiltz wrote. He noted that he would cancel the Friday hearing if the government released the man by then.
The government released him. Schiltz canceled the hearing.
So, one answer to your question of how to force ICE compliance with court orders is: A judge needs to threaten to hold the head of ICE in contempt.
Judges across the country could start incorporating that threat into their orders going forward.
For his part, Schiltz made clear that it’s not an isolated issue that he’s soon to forget. In his order canceling the hearing Wednesday, Schiltz attached a separate document listing 96 times that ICE violated court orders this month alone, writing that the agency “has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
The judge wrote that “ICE is not a law unto itself.” The agency seems to think otherwise, though Schiltz’s order showed one way to check it. His extraordinary action shouldn’t have been necessary to make law enforcement comply with the law, but that’s where we’re at.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
