|
 |
Last Sunday, we discussed a number of cases pending in front of federal district judges in Minneapolis. Friday night, one of them, Judge John Tunheim, dropped a decision that is well worth your time—even on a Friday night. It involves allegations from people detained by ICE that their property was seized and not returned to them. Another word for that might be theft, although one supposes it could also be the result of extraordinary carelessness. Federal law enforcement agents routinely collect, and subsequently return, the possessions of people they detain. But that isn’t happening here.
Judge Tunheim felt so much urgency about the matter than he got his ruling out on a Friday night, not a typical time for a federal judge to be finishing up at work. But he decided it was time to deliver a reckoning to the Trump administration and apparently, didn’t want to delay. His order starts like this:
“During Operation Metro Surge, ICE repeatedly failed to return personal property to detainees ordered released by the Court. In some cases, weeks after their release, and in violation of Court orders, Petitioners continue to be deprived of access to their most essential physical possessions, intensifying the harm of their unlawful arrests and presenting further risks to their safety, liberty, and well-being.”
 |
You can tell from the start. This is not a happy Judge. And it gets worse for the government.
Judge Tunheim says that the former detainees can submit claims for their “lost or missing property.” Then, he directs the government to “promptly remedy all ongoing violations of Court orders in these cases by compensating all claims submitted by Petitioners.” He gives the government 30 days to do that. It’s not entirely clear but I read this as saying “all” submitted claims must be paid. The government doesn’t get to evaluate the claims or argue about the dollar amount. It just has to pay up. In 30 days.
Then comes the kicker. The Judge says that holding the government, which here would mean the U.S. Attorney and other officials, in contempt “is not the appropriate action yet,”…..“but.” “But” does a lot of heavy lifting here and Judge Tunheim doesn’t beat around the bush in clarifying just how disturbing the Trump administration’s conduct has been. He writes, “the Court directs Respondents,” (that’s the government here), to handle the claims “with the same urgency that it used when arresting and transporting detainees, including these Petitioners, out of the state of Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge.” Ouch.
And the Judge isn’t giving the Trump administration any deference. They get 30 days. The Judge has scheduled a hearing for Day 31 “to address whether and to what extent Petitioners’ claims have not been satisfied. If Petitioners’ claims have not been satisfied by that date—more than thirty days after the date of this Order—the Court will impose civil contempt and daily civil fines until full compliance is achieved.”
You might think that would be as bad as it could get for the government. You would be wrong. Because the Judge identifies an additional question that must be dealt with, “A primary question at the hearing will be the identification of the appropriate official to pay the civil fines.” The question he’s posing is this: If the government goes into contempt, which the Judge seems to be anticipating, who has to pay the fines? Presumably, that won’t be the taxpayers. There are some interesting options, starting with the U.S. Attorney and ICE issues and potentially heading much further up the government food chain.
The Judge spends some time on the facts of each the five cases he rules in with this order. Suffice it to say, they are outrageous. The first case involves six individuals, identified only by their initials. They were “arrested at gunpoint in their home” in January and subsequently asked the court to release them. On January 19, 2026, the Court ordered the government to “produce a warrant justifying entry into Petitioners’ home” by 5:00 p.m. that day. The government didn’t, and presumably couldn’t, leading the court to order that all six be released within 72 hours.
That’s easy for the government. A direct order from the court requires compliance by the United States. But of course, since it’s the Trump administration, that didn’t happen. The Court threatened the government with contempt but it still took three additional days before all of the individuals were released from custody. In early February, those people had to go back to court—the government hadn’t returned their property, including documents like work permits and drivers licenses. The government dragged its feet, returning documents later than the Judge’s order permitted. In once case, Judge Tunheim notes they still haven’t returned an individual’s work permit.
In another one of the consolidated cases, the government said it couldn’t find the individual’s property. That defies belief. There are careful rules for inventory and storing of property seized during an arrest or detention. It took the government 30 days to advise that “Petitioner’s “cellphone, clothing, boots, and jewelry have been found” and could be picked up. In another case, the government advised the court that an individual’s Minnesota driver’s license, Guatemalan driver’s license, and Guatemalan Consular Identification Card had been “lost.”
In another case, a woman who had been detained was released was still missing “all of her personal property.” That included headphones, an iPhone, a watch, a wallet with debit and credit cards, personal documents, and a Minnesota identification card a month later. Finally, the government advised the court the property had been found. But they didn’t turn it over, they backpedaled and said it had been lost after all. Then, they found it again, in a sealed bag used for storing property in Texas. Judge Tunheim wrote in his order, “At the time of the Court’s hearing on March 5, 2026, it was unknown if this sealed property bag included all of Petitioner’s personal property.
In the final case, the detained individual reported that he had not received his “nail gun,” “[o]ver $100 in cash,” his social security card, or his “Work Authorization Card” after being released from custody. Ice advised the court, after the deadline for doing so, that the individual’s “social security card had been located and was being transported back to Minnesota from Texas but that ‘ICE is still actively working on locating the remaining property.’”
You just can’t make up a clown show like this. Lost. Not lost. Lost. Not lost. And, The standard procedure is for law enforcement to create an itemized list of all property seized when an individual is detained, so that it would be immediately clear what items were in which locations. The failure to handle routine law enforcement tasks suggests an absolute breakdown of good order and discipline at ICE and CBP. There is literally no reason for the court to have confidence in any representations they make. And this is only the cases in front of Judge Tunheim. Judge Bryan has another 25 cases like this, as we discussed in The Week Ahead.
The Judge had the U.S. Attorney, Daniel Rosen, in court on this matter previously and Rosen told the Judge that the “Department of Homeland Security intends to remedy these violations by reimbursing Petitioners for their property.” Rosen told the Judge they can expedite this process, individuals wouldn’t need to file lawsuits, and if their property was found afterwards it would be returned, even if they had already been compensated. The Judge found that papers like work permits, which are issued by DHS agencies, should be reissued promptly and at no charge. The government has its marching orders.
It’s easy to understand why the Judge is out of patience given all the history he lays out in these cases. The government doesn’t deserve any more chances. It has shown no good faith here, only the drive to execute Trump’s inhumane mass deportation policy. Judge Tunheim has advised the government, very specifically, that if it doesn’t comply with the court’s order it will be in contempt. It’s about time.
Judge Tunheim concludes with this, “In the cases before the Court, Petitioners were unlawfully arrested and detained, and the Court ordered their immediate release. Yet Petitioners’ hardships did not end when they were released from detention because Respondents retained personal belongings that are critical to ensuring Petitioners’ daily safety and well-being.” He notes that the cases he is handling in this order aren’t just about these specific people, that they are representative of what people across Minnesota experienced during ICE’s Operation Metro Surge. And he points to the fact that many of them “are the principal breadwinners for their family and…the loss of their work authorization documents has resulted in lost wages and hardships for their family.” Others are experiencing food insecurity because they don’t have access to finances or phones. Without their phones they can’t access stored documents, or even their loved ones. They have lost jobs and can’t get new ones without their documents. And, he concludes, “Perhaps most troublingly, many petitioners, including Christian A.S.C., are terrified that the loss of their personal identification documents will subject them to additional arrests because they will not be able to prove who they are or aren’t.”
This, in a nutshell, is what this administration is all about. The cruelty isn’t incidental, it’s intentional. This is how brutal dictatorships treat people, not democracies. And who stands against the administration? It’s not Congress, where Republican Senators are lining up to confirm Trump’s new, not even marginally competent nominee to be DHS Secretary. It’s up to the federal district judges now.
Courts around the country are no longer willing to give this Justice Department the benefit of the doubt. Traditionally, judges applied what’s known as the presumption of regularity, assuming that federal agents and prosecutors were doing their jobs properly, acting in good faith, and following the rules unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. But when it comes to matters tied to Trump’s priorities, there is now ample evidence that the presumption doesn’t hold. Judges are beginning to recognize that reality. Confronting it isn’t pleasant, but it’s necessary—and the courts that are doing it deserve our support.
I’m grateful for the community that has formed around Civil Discourse—thoughtful people who want to stay informed and engaged with the law and our democracy. We can’t read every opinion that every judge issues, but some of them, like the one we look at tonight, are incredibly important to understanding the moment we’re in and how the judicial branch is handling it. If being part of a community like this appeals to you, click the link below to become a paid subscriber.
We’re in this together,
Joyce