A federal judge in Minnesota — a Trump appointee — has ruled that the administration is in contempt of court for ignoring an order in an immigration case. That alone would be striking. But it’s now the second contempt finding against the Trump administration in just one week.
Only days earlier, another federal judge in Minnesota held a Justice Department prosecutor in contempt in a separate immigration matter. She imposed a $500-per-day fine until the department complied with her ruling — and compliance came the very next day. Financial penalties tend to get attention.
This is becoming a pattern. At the start of Trump’s second term, many observers warned that openly defying court orders would mark a serious step toward authoritarianism. That line now appears to be crossed repeatedly, particularly in immigration cases.
Judges are no longer just noting violations — they are pushing back. In Minnesota, the chief judge has reportedly cataloged nearly 100 instances of court-order violations in immigration matters within the state. In New Jersey, the Justice Department was compelled to apologize in court for violating more than 50 federal court orders and sought to avoid being held in contempt. In Virginia, a DOJ prosecutor apologized after a judge rebuked the department for withholding key information while seeking a search warrant for a Washington Post reporter’s home.
In West Virginia, Judge Joseph Goodwin issued a sharply worded opinion after masked ICE agents arrested a man without a bond hearing. He described federal agents operating without warrants, using unmarked vehicles, and detaining individuals without due process. He characterized the practice as a systematic erosion of constitutional safeguards — an assault on the constitutional order itself.
Across the country, judges are asserting their authority, defending the integrity of the courts, and reinforcing constitutional boundaries. The Justice Department occupies a uniquely important role in upholding the rule of law. Its actions carry far greater institutional consequences than those of many other agencies.
Looking ahead, when this period is over, there will likely need to be a clear recognition that such conduct was not normal and should not set precedent. Courts are now drawing firm lines, signaling that defiance of judicial authority will carry consequences. That resistance may prove essential to preserving the functioning of the constitutional system — and to restoring a Justice Department that operates within it.