Share and Follow
ST. PAUL, Minn. — In a rare and heated exchange, a federal judge and Minnesota’s lead federal prosecutor faced off on Tuesday during a contempt hearing that underscored the rising tensions between federal judges and the Department of Justice. The session revealed the growing impatience judges feel towards the DOJ’s actions.
The hearing was convened by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan to deliberate whether Daniel N. Rosen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, along with others, should be held in contempt. The issue at hand was their failure to comply with court orders to return personal belongings to immigrants who had been detained but subsequently released. These items included essentials such as cash, identification documents, and even a single shoelace.
Judge Bryan, in setting the tone for the hearing, described the situation as potentially marking a “historic low point” for the U.S. attorney’s office should contempt be determined necessary. This statement reflected his concern over what he deemed to be “numerous unlawful violations of court orders.”
In response, Rosen defended his actions, retorting that the judge’s statement was a personal affront. The tension in the courtroom prompted Judge Bryan to call for a recess, noting the need to ease the “testy and frosty” atmosphere between him and Rosen.
As of Tuesday, Judge Bryan had yet to make a ruling on the contempt issue, leaving the timeline for a decision open-ended. The proceedings serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing friction between the judiciary and federal prosecutors, highlighting the challenges of enforcing court orders in cases involving immigration and personal rights.
Things were calmer in the afternoon, with Rosen saying there “was no defiance, no disobedience,” over judicial orders. He said compensation would be paid in cases where immigrants’ property was lost, problems he said would “fall into the realm of human error,” and that the government believes property was returned in other cases.
“The government believes contempt is far beyond anything that ought to be considered here today,” Rosen said.
Rosen’s office is facing a serious staff shortage. A series of prosecutors have left the office over the past year, including a recent group who left amid growing frustration with the administration’s immigration enforcement and the Justice Department’s response to two fatal shootings by federal officers in Minneapolis.
There has been a surge in recent weeks of judges issuing critical and sometimes scathing statements and rulings over the fallout from the administration’s attempts at mass immigrant deportations, with the Department of Justice appearing unable to always keep up with the flood of cases from the crackdown.
There was the district judge in Minnesota who took the rare step of finding an administration lawyer in contempt for failing to return identification documents to an immigrant, the judge in New York who decried ICE’s “abhorrent and illegal practices,” and the judge in West Virginia who chastised U.S. and state officials for jailing noncitizens indefinitely.
The government “incredulously asserts that the federal district courts do not have jurisdiction, that petitioners cannot raise due process violations, and that the Government has authority to mandatorily and indefinitely detain noncitizens in the local jail,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin said in his order.
“The government is wrong,” he continued. “Judges in this district have said that over and over and over again.”
The chief federal judge for Minnesota has repeatedly grabbed national attention with his warnings.
“ICE is not a law unto itself,” Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz wrote in late January about the government’s repeated failures to comply with court orders during Operation Metro Surge, the immigration crackdown that shook Minneapolis and the surrounding region.
Last week, Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush and is seen as a conservative, said Rosen and ICE officials must comply with court orders or risk criminal contempt charges.
“The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt — again and again and again — to force the United States government to comply with court orders,” Schiltz wrote.
The administration has blamed judges for the crisis, accusing them of failing to follow the law and rushing cases.
___
Sullivan contributed from Minneapolis.