Left: Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). Right: President Donald Trump listens during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, July 16, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal judge in Minnesota has criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), accusing the agency of ignoring approximately 100 court orders since 2026. This comes just days after the judge demanded an appearance from ICE’s acting director.
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz delivered a firm message in a four-page order issued on Wednesday, emphasizing that ICE must adhere to the rule of law. While acknowledging that ICE eventually complied with his directive, Schiltz made it clear that this compliance did not alleviate the broader issues at hand.
The matter escalated on January 8, when Schiltz was approached by Juan Robles, an individual detained by ICE, who filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge the legality of his detention. On January 14, Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, ordered that Robles be granted a bond hearing within a week or be released.
When neither action was taken, Schiltz issued a stern warning to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE’s overseeing body, stating that his “patience is at an end.” He summoned acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to appear in court on Friday, threatening contempt proceedings if he failed to do so.
Nevertheless, Schiltz provided DHS with an alternative: Release Robles, and the court appearance would be unnecessary. On Wednesday, DHS informed the judge that Robles had been freed, prompting Schiltz to cancel the hearing.
Despite this resolution, Judge Schiltz did not hold back his frustration, highlighting a troubling trend of ICE’s repeated disregard for court orders.
“Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases,” he wrote. “The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.”
He went on, at length:
This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. The Court warns ICE that future noncompliance with court orders may result in future show-cause orders requiring the personal appearances of Lyons or other government officials. ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.
Schiltz did not grant a request from Robles for a hearing in which he could “present evidence and argument concerning the hardships that he has suffered as a result of respondents’ failure to abide” by the judge’s original Jan. 14 order. However, he noted that if Robles “wants to seek monetary sanctions, he may file a properly supported motion to that effect.”
DHS’ activity during its “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota has garnered international attention after ICE agents on two separate occasions killed local residents despite them posing no apparent threat to the officers, according to videos of the shootings.
Schiltz has been critical of the department’s planning, writing on Monday that “[t]his Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result.”
A different federal judge in Minnesota this week considered whether the Trump administration’s immigration effort is an unconstitutional attempt at strong-arming state and local officials into complying with President Donald Trump’s policy preferences. Responding to the state’s lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order immediately blocking the operation, U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez appeared skeptical both of the federal government’s reason for sending thousands of federal troops into the city and her own authority to curb the campaign.
