A federal judge in Minnesota has ruled against the Trump administration, holding it in contempt for the unlawful detention of a Mexican man, who was subsequently transported hundreds of miles away and released in a remote Texas desert city. This action contravened a court order, leaving the man stranded without means to return home.

The judge’s decision, encapsulated in an eight-page opinion and order, highlights a series of legal challenges that arose during President Donald Trump’s second term. These cases frequently involve district courts intervening in the administration’s contentious attempts to redefine immigration policies, particularly those affecting the classification and detention of immigrants.

In this specific instance, Fernando Torres, the petitioner, was granted a habeas corpus release after successfully arguing before U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud that he had been wrongfully classified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Judge Tostrud, appointed during Trump’s first term, concluded that the legal interpretation ICE used to justify Torres’s detention was flawed.

“This raises an issue of statutory interpretation that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well,” Judge Tostrud stated in his earlier order. “Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable.”

Despite Torres’s eventual release, the Trump administration now faces further repercussions for the manner in which it handled the release, marking another setback in its handling of immigration enforcement.

Now, well after Torres has been released, the Trump administration has suffered another loss for how the release was effectuated.

After the judge issued the earlier order, ICE released the petitioner in El Paso, Texas — nearly 1,500 miles away from his Minnesota home.

He was also released “without his belongings,” the judge noted.

“Fernando”s counsel paid $568.29 for Fernando’s airfare to return to Minnesota,” the order reads. “Fernando seeks compensatory sanctions—namely, compensation for Fernando’s airfare and attorneys’ fees.”

As it turned out, ICE was supposed to have brought Torres back to the Land of 10,000 Lakes before he was released — and previously violated a court order by moving him to the Lone Star State.

On Jan. 19, the original petition was filed. The next day, Tostrud entered a temporary restraining order barring ICE from moving Torres out of state until the proceedings concluded. ICE acknowledged the order but then promptly ignored it by transferring Torres anyway. Then, two days later, government attorneys admitted to the violation.

The judge summarizes:

In other words, ICE was informed of the Order enjoining Fernando’s removal from Minnesota on January 20. That same day, ICE represented that Fernando would not be moved out of Minnesota. But on January 22, ICE transferred Fernando from Minnesota to Texas.

Still, the court gave the government an opportunity to fix the problem. And government lawyers told the court they would do so.

But then they apparently ignored their own representation as well.

“On January 23, I issued an Order requiring Respondents to identify Fernando’s location and the schedule for his return to the District of Minnesota,” the latest order continues. “Respondents affirmatively ‘confirmed[ed] ICE informed it has [Fernando] scheduled to be back in Minnesota tomorrow, 24 January 2026.’ Despite this assurance, Fernando was released in El Paso.”

And, when asked to account for what happened in the case, the Trump administration apparently had little to say for itself, except one footnote in which a DOJ attorney suggested “a major winter storm” in Texas precluded the petitioner being returned back to Minnesota.

Tostrud was not having it.

Again, the court, at length:

Fernando is entitled to compensatory sanctions for Respondents’ civil contempt of the January 20 Order. The Order enjoined Respondents from moving Fernando from the District of Minnesota during the pendency of his Petition. Respondents admit they violated the January 20 Order by transferring Fernando to El Paso, despite knowledge that his movement outside of this District was enjoined. Respondents provide no explanation for Fernando’s transfer to El Paso despite the enjoinment of his movement from this District.

As a result of Respondents’ violation of the January 20 Order and their failure to cure that violation on their own, Fernando and his counsel incurred the undisputed and documented $568.29 expenditure for Fernando’s return airfare. To the extent Respondents imply that a canceled flight, a winter snowstorm, or haste to comply with the Court’s January 24, 2026 Order directing Fernando’s release excuse their contempt, these asserted justifications do not support an inability to comply with the January 20 Order. Respondents acknowledge they violated that Order.

“Accordingly, I find that Respondents’ conduct constitutes civil contempt, and Respondents (as defined herein) are jointly and severally liable for compensatory civil contempt sanctions for airfare costs Fernando incurred because of the violation,” the order goes on.

In a footnote of his own, Tostrud muses that the DOJ may choose to identify who, exactly, should incur the sanction — should it so desire.

“We do not know which of the Respondents was directly responsible for the January 20, 2026 Order’s violation,” the footnote reads. “If Respondents wish to obtain an amended order that identifies which specific person or entity is directly responsible, Respondents should file a motion identifying the responsible Respondent and requesting this Order’s amendment.”