This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.
Last week, Minnesota’s top federal prosecutor appeared before two federal district court judges and asked them to not hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders. The judges, Biden appointee Jeffrey Bryan and Clinton appointee John Tunheim, had both directed the government to release dozens of unlawfully detained people and return their personal belongings. After learning that the administration released 28 detainees but kept their cash, phones, driver’s licenses, passports, work permits, and more, Bryan held a hearing on March 3 to give U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen a chance to explain himself. Tunheim similarly held a hearing on March 5 after finding that the government retained the possessions of at least six other detainees without any lawful basis.
During the hearing, Bryan said that ordering Rosen’s imprisonment “would be a historical low point for the office of the United States Attorney and for this District,” and that it was “very, very unlikely.” But Bryan was angry enough to tell Rosen that he hadn’t “ruled [it] out,” either.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, courts have been reluctant to impose consequences on the administration for its myriad violations of court orders. In recent weeks, however, some judges have started to recognize their power to compel compliance with their directives. A New York Times analysis published last month shows that since August, federal judges have issued at least 35 orders requiring the administration to explain why it shouldn’t be held in contempt. Twice since February, federal judges in Minnesota actually followed through, and briefly held the administration in civil contempt. And twice more in the past two weeks, federal judges in Minnesota and New Jersey threatened the administration with criminal contempt, too.
