A federal judge in Minnesota and the top U.S. prosecutor in the state sparred during an unusual contempt hearing over whether federal immigration authorities followed court orders to return personal property to immigrants after they were detained and then ordered freed. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan called the hearing to decide whether U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen and others should be held in contempt for alleged failures to heed those orders.
Bryan told the court at the start of the Tuesday hearing that there had been “numerous unlawful violations of court orders,” and he framed the stakes as personal and institutional. He said it would be a “historic low point” for the U.S. attorney’s office if he held anyone in contempt.
Rosen responded during the hearing after Bryan made what Rosen characterized as a damaging remark about him. Rosen told the judge, “Your honor has made a remark smearing myself.” After that exchange, Bryan called for a break in the proceedings to reset the tone, acknowledging that “the two had been a little testy and frosty with each other.”
By the end of the day, Bryan had not immediately ruled on whether Rosen or other officials could be held in contempt, and the judge did not announce a timeline for any decision. In the afternoon session, Rosen described the government’s position as one of compliance rather than defiance. He said there was no intention to resist judicial orders, telling the court there “was no defiance, no disobedience,” over orders from judges.
Rosen also said the government would provide compensation when property was lost. He described the problems as “human error” and said that the government believes property was returned in other cases. Rosen argued to the court that contempt was inappropriate, saying, “The government believes contempt is far beyond anything that ought to be considered here today.”
The dispute unfolded against a broader backdrop of strain inside the Justice Department’s immigration enforcement team and growing judicial criticism. Rosen’s office has been facing a serious staff shortage, and AP reported that a series of prosecutors left over the past year, including a recent group that departed amid frustration with the administration’s immigration enforcement and the Justice Department’s response to two fatal shootings by federal officers in Minneapolis.
The hearing also reflected a wider pattern of judges issuing increasingly forceful rulings and statements amid the fallout from mass deportation efforts. AP noted that judges in multiple states took sharp steps in recent weeks, including instances where courts condemned alleged failures to comply with immigration-related directives and due-process concerns raised in cases involving detention and removal.
AP pointed to one example in Minnesota involving Bryan’s chief judge, Patrick Schiltz, who has warned that officials involved in detentions must follow orders. In late January, Schiltz wrote that ICE is not a law unto itself and warned that Rosen and ICE officials must comply with court orders or risk criminal contempt charges. Schiltz also said that the court had not seen a comparable history of federal courts having to threaten contempt repeatedly to force U.S. government compliance with court orders.
Another judge’s prior language also surfaced in the broader picture of judicial pushback. AP described how U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin criticized what he called the government’s position on jurisdiction and due process, saying, “The government is wrong,” and quoting that “Judges in this district have said that over and over and over again.”
For this week’s contempt hearing, Bryan’s central task remained unresolved after Tuesday’s courtroom exchanges: whether prosecutors and officials violated court orders by failing to return immigrants’ property, which the judge described as ranging from cash and identity documents to even a shoelace. The judge did not say when he would issue his decision, leaving the contempt question in limbo as the confrontation between the courts and the Justice Department continued.