Federal Judges Are Slowly Realizing They Can Treat Trump Like Anyone Else
This article is part of the TPM Café, the TPM opinion and news analysis site. It was originally published on Balls and Strikes.
Last week, Minnesota’s top federal prosecutor appeared before two federal district court judges and asked them not to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders. The justices, Biden appointee Jeffrey Bryan and Clinton appointee John Tunheim, had both ordered the government to release dozens of illegally detained people and return their personal belongings. After learning that the administration had released 28 detainees but kept their money, phones, driver’s licenses, passports, work permits, etc., Bryan held a hearing on March 3 to give U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen an opportunity to explain himself. Tunheim also held a hearing on March 5 after concluding that the government was holding the property of at least six other detainees without any legal basis.
During the hearing, Bryan said ordering Rosen’s imprisonment “would be a historic low point for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and for this district” and that it was “very, very unlikely.” But Bryan was angry enough to tell Rosen that he had not “governed [it] outside,” either.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, courts have been reluctant to impose consequences on the administration for its countless violations of court orders. In recent weeks, however, some judges have begun to recognize their power to enforce compliance with their directives. A New York Times An analysis released last month shows that since August, federal judges have issued at least 35 orders requiring the administration to explain why it should not be held in contempt. Twice since February, federal judges in Minnesota have actually followed through and briefly held the administration in civil contempt. And twice in the past two weeks, federal judges in Minnesota and New Jersey have also threatened the administration with criminal contempt.
Last month, Biden-appointed Judge Laura Provinzino held federal prosecutor Matthew Isihara in civil contempt for his mishandling of the case of Rigoberto Soto Jimenez, an inmate who filed a habeas petition in early February. Provinzino granted Soto Jimenez’s request on February 9, ordering the government to turn over his belongings and release him to Minnesota by February 13, and to confirm that he had done so by February 17. Sometime after that deadline, Soto Jimenez’s lawyer told the court that the government released him on February 12, but in Texas, and without any of his documents. Soto Jimenez had to spend the night in a homeless shelter and his lawyer flew him back to Minnesota using his own airline miles.
The next day, Provinzino imposed a $500 fine for each day after February 19 that Soto Jimenez was without his property. Isihara asked the court to exercise its “discretion” and “good graces” in light of the administration’s workload, but Provinzino firmly rejected that request. “This Court would never allow a private attorney or litigator to use the ‘I’m too busy’ excuse to justify disobeying a court order,” she wrote. “Government is no different.”
The government immediately returned Soto Jimenez’s ID card, allowing Isihara to avoid paying a fine. But on February 23, Judge Eric Tostrud again found the administration in contempt, under very similar circumstances. In late January, Tostrud, a Trump appointee, ordered the government not to deport a Minnesota inmate while his habeas petition was pending. After the government transferred the man to Texas anyway, Tostrud ordered him returned to Minnesota by the end of the day on January 24.
Once again, the government released the detainee. But again, he did so in Texas, and did not return any of the man’s personal belongings, forcing his lawyer to pay $568.29 for the plane ticket to bring him back to Minnesota.
Recognizing that judges may use civil contempt to compensate victims for losses associated with violations of a court order, Tostrud ordered the administration to repay the $568.29. A few days later, he issued a new order canceling the monetary reward on technical grounds. But Tostrud did not overturn the underlying contempt finding and suggested there might be other legal grounds for requiring the government to pay for its actions.
Other justices disagree with Tostrud on whether certain forms of contempt are prohibited against the government. On March 2, Biden-appointed Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey considered fining or jailing members of the Trump administration for violating court orders, writing that the “everyday rules of the road” of litigation still apply to the federal government. “A federal official can be held in contempt. So can a federal agency,” Farbiarz said. “And if federal officials or a federal agency are charged with contempt, the full range of contempt sanctions are available.”
Farbiarz ultimately did not hold the administration in criminal contempt, acknowledging that doing so would be “a last resort.” But he suggested that if the violations were to continue, he would consider this last resort a more viable option. “Local ICE leaders must address the serious problem of non-compliance with court orders,” Farbiarz wrote. In the event of future violations, he continued, “the ball will go from another place.”
Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, also threatened the Trump administration with criminal contempt late last month. After listing 96 court orders that ICE had violated in 74 cases, Schiltz concluded that the agency “probably violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” He concluded by promising to do “whatever is necessary to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, the use of criminal contempt.”
Schiltz’s threat was enough to ensure compliance with his order, but he stressed that he remained concerned about the administration’s lawlessness and would not hesitate to take more serious action. “The judges in this district have been extraordinarily patient with the government’s lawyers,” he wrote. “The Court is unaware of any other occasion in United States history where a federal court has had to threaten contempt – again and again – to compel the United States Government to comply with court orders.
The Trump administration has shown that it will continue to violate court orders until the courts force it to stop. Judges are beginning to remember their responsibility to enforce the rules that everyone must follow, as well as the full range of tools available to enforce them.
