Federal judges across the United States have been expressing growing frustration with the federal government, and one of the most forceful warnings came this week from Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of Minnesota. Schiltz, a judge appointed by President George W. Bush, publicly criticized the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for repeatedly ignoring court orders in immigration cases. He said the situation had become so serious that he is now threatening to hold officials in criminal contempt of court if they continue to defy his rulings.
Schiltz’s rebuke came in a six-page order filed Thursday in federal court in Minnesota. In that order, he stated that his patience — and that of his colleagues on the bench — has run out after hundreds of government violations of court orders related to immigration detainees. The orders at issue largely came from lawsuits involving people who said they were being held illegally by ICE during the federal government’s large immigration enforcement operation known as “Operation Metro Surge.” Though civil contempt — which carries financial penalties — had been used in the past to try to enforce compliance, Schiltz said that those measures were no longer enough.
The judge detailed that, according to the court’s tally, ICE has violated roughly 210 court orders in these cases. He said that in prior months the court had identified dozens of cases in which ICE failed to follow direct instructions — like giving detainees timely bond hearings or releasing them when required. Schiltz said judges have had to repeatedly threaten contempt to get basic compliance with the law. He added that he was not aware of another time in U.S. history when a federal court had to issue so many contempt threats just to get the government to obey judicial orders.
In his order, Schiltz also criticized DOJ leadership for how the legal situation was being handled. He noted that some Department of Justice attorneys assigned to handle these immigration cases have resigned, and he suggested that the agency’s priorities have made it difficult for lawyers in the field to do their jobs. Schiltz pointed out that the administration sent thousands of ICE agents to Minnesota for the enforcement operation without planning for the legal consequences that would follow — including the hundreds of lawsuits that accompanied it.
The order included language attacking the government’s approach, saying that DOJ supervisors “have put” their own attorneys “in an impossible position,” and that the judges of the district had shown “extraordinary patience.” Still, Schiltz emphasized that patience has limits and that he is prepared to take stronger action if necessary.
Criminal contempt is a serious step. Unlike civil contempt, which usually involves fines to encourage compliance, criminal contempt charges can involve prosecutors seeking criminal penalties — including potential jail time — against individuals who are found to have willfully disobeyed a court order. By holding open the possibility of criminal contempt proceedings, Schiltz is signaling that he believes the violations are not accidental or minor, but significant enough to warrant punishment beyond financial penalties.
The judge’s strong language and threats do not happen in isolation. Federal courts around the nation have increasingly been asserting their authority in disputes over immigration enforcement policies under the current administration. Judges are required by law to oversee the government’s actions and ensure that agencies follow the Constitution and federal statutes. When courts issue orders, the executive branch is legally bound to follow them, and repeated failure to do so undermines the rule of law.
For its part, the Justice Department has not yet responded directly to Schiltz’s latest order. It’s not clear what steps, if any, the administration will take to avoid criminal contempt, or how higher DOJ leadership will respond to the judge’s criticism. What is clear from Schiltz’s order is that federal judges are prepared to escalate enforcement when they believe the government is repeatedly ignoring lawful court orders.
