Share and Follow
President Donald Trump speaks alongside Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a roundtable about antifa in the State Dining Room at the White House Oct. 8, 2025 (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images).
On Monday, a federal judge in Minnesota held the Trump administration in contempt following the wrongful detention of a Mexican man. This man was transported hundreds of miles from his home and subsequently released in a remote Texas desert city, leaving him stranded without a way to return, all in defiance of a court mandate.
The eight-page ruling highlights a legal situation stemming from the Trump administration’s second term. The document elaborates on case law that has emerged as judges frequently challenge and halt controversial immigration policies.
These legal battles have quickly set precedents, with district court judges often intervening to block attempts to alter the classification and detention processes for immigrants.
In this particular case, Fernando Torres managed to secure his release through a habeas corpus petition in late January. U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud, appointed during Trump’s first term, ruled in favor of Torres, finding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had wrongly classified him.
“This case raises a statutory interpretation issue that has been repeatedly considered and rejected by courts in this District,” Tostrud stated in his previous order. “Respondents are ordered to release the Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable.”
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.”