OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Dear Members of Congress,

We write as constituents and residents of Minnesota to demand immediate congressional action in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s documented violations of federal court orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

In January 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz found that ICE had violated at least 96 court orders in 74 separate immigration cases in Minnesota since January 1, 2026 alone, a tally the court said “is almost certainly substantially understated.” The violations stemmed from repeated failures to provide timely bond hearings or to release individuals in accordance with judicial mandates. Judge Schiltz stated that ICE may have “violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence” and warned that future noncompliance could result in orders requiring senior ICE officials to appear in court to address potential contempt. (Star Tribune)

Judge Schiltz’s order commanding Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to appear personally in court reflected the court’s view that lesser measures had failed, writing that “the extent of ICE’s violation of court orders is likewise extraordinary,” and that ICE had ignored “dozens of court orders” with resulting “significant hardship” for affected individuals. (Star Tribune)

Under settled law, criminal contempt exists where:

• A clear and reasonably specific court order has been entered;
• There has been actual notice of that order; and
• There is willful disobedience of the order.

Judge Schiltz’s findings and warnings are a clear effort by the judiciary to enforce these standards in the face of what he described as ongoing noncompliance.

Federal courts possess inherent authority to enforce their orders, including by criminal contempt proceedings. Where the Department of Justice represents the offending agency, courts may appoint a special prosecutor to avoid conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court has recognized this principle in Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987).

What is missing is enforcement and accountability.

We therefore call on Congress to take the following actions without delay:

1. Demand individual accountability. Require the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to identify the specific agents, supervisors, and senior officials responsible for violating judicial orders in Minnesota. Agency-level excuses cannot substitute for individual responsibility when willful contempt is at issue.
2. Support criminal contempt proceedings. Publicly affirm that willful violations of federal court orders by ICE personnel warrant criminal contempt findings, including against leadership where violations were authorized, tolerated, or ignored, consistent with judicial standards for contempt.
3. Demand referrals for prosecution. Formally request that federal judges refer responsible individuals to U.S. Attorneys for criminal contempt investigations and, where conflicts arise because DOJ represents ICE, support the appointment of special prosecutors consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

When executive agencies can ignore judicial orders without consequence, constitutional limits collapse. This is not an immigration policy dispute. It is a separation-of-powers emergency. Courts cannot function if their orders are treated as optional, and Congress cannot credibly exercise its oversight authority while tolerating systemic judicial defiance by executive agencies.

All Americans are entitled to a government bound by law. We expect Congress to defend the authority of the courts and to insist on clear consequences when that authority is deliberately undermined.

This letter is submitted as an open, sign-on request. We urge Members of Congress to publicly state whether they support the enforcement of court orders and individual accountability for federal officials who violate them.

Sincerely,

Christine Lekatz
Maple Grove, Minnesota