Federal Judges Revolt Against Trump: 'Show Cause' Orders Fly

A George W. Bush appointee just did something remarkable: he ordered a Trump administration official to personally appear in court and explain why he shouldn't be jailed for contempt. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of Minnesota's federal district court—a former Scalia clerk—has had enough of the Trump administration ignoring his orders.

The case started simple enough. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested a man identified only as "Juan T.R." and tried to detain him under a law that applies to people "applying for admission" to the US. But Juan isn't applying—he's been here since around 1999. On January 14, Schiltz ordered ICE to either give Juan a bond hearing within seven days or release him immediately.

Twelve days later, Juan remains locked up.

When Courts Become Toothless

Schiltz's patience finally snapped. His January 26 order notes that Juan's case is "one of dozens of court orders" the Trump administration has ignored in recent weeks. Sometimes they extend detention without justification. Other times, they fly someone "who should remain in Minnesota" to Texas, then release them there and tell them to "figure out a way to get home."

Now Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons must personally appear in court on January 30 to explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt. There's an out: release Juan before the hearing, and Lyons can skip his court date.

The judge's frustration is palpable. The Trump administration, he writes, "decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result."

A Justice Department in Freefall

If anything, DOJ's capacity has gotten worse since the Minneapolis occupation began. At least six DOJ attorneys in Minnesota—including the second-in-command—resigned after the administration pushed for a criminal investigation into the widow of Renee Good, who was killed by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross on January 7.

Schiltz isn't alone in his frustration. Judge Katherine Menendez is demanding explanations for a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi suggesting the occupation's purpose was to coerce Minnesota into policy concessions, including turning over voter rolls. Using force against citizens to coerce state policy changes violates the 10th Amendment.

In Richmond, Virginia, a Trump-appointed judge threatened to disbar Lindsey Halligan, then a DOJ lawyer, after she falsely claimed in court filings to be the US attorney for eastern Virginia—a position a federal court had already ruled she doesn't hold. Halligan has since left the Justice Department.

Even Grand Juries Don't Trust Them

The dysfunction runs deeper than individual cases. Grand juries—normally rubber stamps for prosecutors—are now refusing to indict. Last September alone, grand juries in Washington, DC refused to allow seven criminal cases to move forward.

Compare that to 2016, the last year before Trump's first presidency: federal prosecutors initiated over 155,000 criminal matters, and grand juries refused indictments in only six cases.

Judges are coming close to accusing Trump's lawyers of outright lying in court proceedings. The institutional trust that makes the federal court system function is evaporating.

The Supreme Court Safety Net

There's a catch, though. The Supreme Court's Republican majority has Trump's back. In 2024, they ruled that Trump can use presidential powers to commit crimes. The senior-most judges in America are largely "in the tank for Trump," as one observer put it.

But here's the thing: the Supreme Court hears only a tiny fraction of federal cases. Even if Republican justices keep running interference for their party's leader, it'll be administratively nightmarish for Trump's Justice Department to process thousands of cases when rank-and-file judges don't trust them to be honest or follow orders.

The Minneapolis occupation alone will generate hundreds of cases, many involving straightforward violations of federal law like Juan T.R.'s detention. Even this Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene in every single case where a federal judge orders someone illegally detained to be released.