Left: Judge Laura Provinzino appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2024 following her nomination. Right: Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks with reporters after briefing House Oversight Committee members on the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2026 (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images).
The Trump administration is voicing concerns, alleging that a judge “wrongly” used her contempt authority against a temporary Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney to pressure the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for quicker adherence to a court ruling in a Minnesota habeas corpus case.
On Monday, the DOJ approached the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino’s recent action to hold a Judge Advocate General’s Corps attorney in civil contempt was “manifestly improper.” They contend it was used as a means to compel the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE to comply with court orders, and they are seeking to have this decision reversed.
Judge Provinzino, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, had issued an order in early February demanding the release of a “wrongfully detained” Mexican national residing in Minnesota with his lawful permanent resident wife since 2018. The order specifically directed that he be freed from ICE custody in El Paso, Texas, and returned to Minnesota. However, when Rigoberto Soto Jimenez was released, he lacked his Minnesota driver’s license and Mexican Consulate ID, and he was not returned to Minnesota.
After more than a week with no progress, the judge questioned special assistant U.S. attorney (SAUSA) Matthew Isihara about the government’s failure to follow the court order. As reported by Law&Crime, Isihara apologized, admitting it fell “through the cracks” and explained his overwhelming workload of 130 cases in a month, a situation exacerbated by staffing issues at an office burdened by Operation Metro Surge.
Following a hearing on February 18, the judge found Isihara in civil contempt, imposing a $500 daily “coercive fine” starting February 20, to persist until compliance was confirmed through documentation.
Judge Provinzino’s decision was not without precedent. Just weeks earlier, a DHS attorney, also assisting at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, made headlines by requesting a different judge to hold her in contempt so she could rest. A week after Isihara’s contempt ruling, the chief judge of the court expressed concern, stating that neither judges nor attorneys should endure the “impossible” conditions created by DOJ “superiors,” and warned of potential criminal contempt measures to enforce compliance if necessary.
Ultimately, as the DOJ’s own appellate filing recounted, Isihara was not fined a single dollar — because the government just one day after Provinzino’s order confirmed that Jimenez’s property was returned, purging the contempt.
In case that series of events left the impression that Provinzino’s action was simple and effective, the DOJ made sure to tell the 8th Circuit not to be fooled. Rather, Provinzino “held” Isihara’s career “captive” and subjected him to potential “permanent professional consequences” in an “improper attempt to coerce the defendant federal agency into speedier compliance with an order against that agency,” the filing said.
“Petitioner emphasizes that ICE promptly came into compliance with the court’s habeas order and that the court declared the contempt order purged before Mr. Isihara paid any daily fines. But that only underscores the problem: the fact that the court held a personal-capacity contempt order against Mr. Isihara purged based on compliance by his client makes clear that Mr. Isihara and his legal career were wrongfully held captive to induce ICE’s compliance,” the DOJ asserted. “That ICE complied before Mr. Isihara was forced to incur personal-capacity fines should not perversely immunize the court’s improper order from review. Normally, a party facing civil contempt has the option of complying, thereby purging the contempt, or continuing to resist and seeking further review. Mr. Isihara, however, lacked that choice because—to state the obvious—a SAUSA in the District of Minnesota does not control ICE.”
In a parting shot, the DOJ accused the judge of abusing her authority and invited the 8th Circuit to stop her from using contempt “as a weapon” and “as a wedge to set an attorney against his own client.”
“It would be entirely appropriate for this Court to exercise its supervisory authority to prevent district court judges from deploying personal-capacity contempt sanctions against government attorneys as a weapon to influence ICE or other agencies,” the filing said.
