Summary: A Minnesota federal judge held DOJ attorney Matthew Isihara in civil contempt after Rigoberto Soto Jimenez was released in Texas without his identification despite a Feb. 9 order to release him in Minnesota and return his property. The court imposed a $500-per-day coercive sanction until the documents were returned; the property arrived the next day and fines were not enforced. The episode highlights a surge in habeas petitions and staffing strains at the Justice Department, prompting the judge to demand "100% compliance" with court orders.
Minn. Judge Finds DOJ Lawyer In Contempt After Migrant Freed Without ID — Fines Stayed After Property Returned
A federal judge in Minnesota held a Justice Department attorney in civil contempt after a man ordered released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody was freed in Texas without his identification documents, in violation of a court order. The episode has intensified tensions between federal judges and the Trump administration over immigration litigation and highlighted strains on Justice Department resources handling a surge of habeas petitions.
What Happened
On Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino ordered Rigoberto Soto Jimenez released from ICE custody, finding his detention unlawful because immigration officials lacked an administrative warrant. The judge directed that Soto Jimenez be released in Minnesota with "all property" returned to him. Court records indicate he has lived in Minnesota since 2018 with a lawful permanent resident spouse.
Instead of being released in Minnesota, Soto Jimenez was transported to an ICE facility in El Paso, Texas, and released there without his driver's license or other identification. According to his attorney, Erin Lins, the missing documents forced him to spend a night in a shelter before his lawyer arranged travel back to Minnesota.
Court Response
At a hearing, Judge Provinzino ordered Matthew Isihara — a military lawyer detailed to serve as a special U.S. attorney with the Justice Department — to pay $500 per day until the petitioner’s identification was returned. The following day the government returned the man’s property and the judge said she would not impose the fines.
When asked to explain, Isihara said, "unfortunately, this was one instance in which, to be candid, the ball was dropped — on my part." Other DOJ attorneys said they were unable to reach ICE personnel in El Paso. The government defended the mistakes as inadvertent and tied them to understaffing and heavy caseloads, a justification Provinzino rejected.
"Willfulness is not a requirement to impose coercive civil contempt sanctions," Provinzino said. "The government's understaffing and high caseload is a problem of its own making and absolutely does not justify flagrant disobedience of court orders."
Broader Context
Judges across Minnesota have raised similar complaints in recent weeks, accusing ICE and other federal agencies of slow compliance with release orders, transferring detainees out of state, or imposing conditions despite orders to release without conditions. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz said ICE likely violated nearly 100 court orders in January alone.
The Justice Department has responded to the surge in habeas petitions by temporarily assigning prosecutors from other districts and military attorneys, including numerous JAG officers. Court records show Isihara has appeared on more than 100 habeas cases in a short period; another temporary DOJ lawyer, Julie Le, was listed on more than 80 cases and was later removed from her detail after a contentious courtroom exchange about staffing and workloads.
Judge's Directives And Implications
In her order, Provinzino demanded "100% compliance" from Justice Department attorneys going forward and required prompt notification if an order might be violated. She emphasized that the court will not accept "I'm too busy" as an excuse for failing to follow court orders, saying the government must be held to the same standards as private litigants.
The case underscores the operational challenges that federal agencies and the Justice Department face amid an increase in immigration enforcement and litigation. It also signals that courts may impose real consequences when orders are disregarded, even if the underlying cause is understaffing or an overwhelmed docket.
Help us improve.
