Skip to content

Federal judge threatens ICE with criminal charges over migrants' missing belongings

A bold federal judge drew a line in the sand—return migrants' belongings or face prison. Why this case could reshape how ICE obeys the law.

The image shows a black and white photo of Judge James S. Manning, wearing a suit and tie. At the...
The image shows a black and white photo of Judge James S. Manning, wearing a suit and tie. At the bottom of the image, there is text that reads "Judge James S Manning".

Federal judge threatens ICE with criminal charges over migrants' missing belongings

A federal judge in Minnesota has clashed with a U.S. Attorney over the government's failure to return personal belongings to released migrants. The dispute escalated into a contempt hearing, where the judge warned officials of criminal charges if court orders continued to be ignored. The case highlights growing tensions between judges and federal authorities in immigration proceedings.

The hearing was triggered by what the judge described as 'numerous unlawful violations of court orders' by the Department of Justice. At issue was the return of property—ranging from cash and identity documents to clothing—belonging to immigrants after their release. The district judge found an administration lawyer in contempt for failing to comply with earlier rulings on returning these items.

The chief federal judge for Minnesota went further, cautioning the U.S. Attorney and ICE officials that repeated non-compliance could lead to criminal contempt charges. The U.S. Attorney disputed the allegations, arguing that the government had acted within legal bounds. This confrontation follows a broader pattern of judicial criticism in deportation cases.

In a separate case, a judge in West Virginia recently rebuked authorities for detaining noncitizens indefinitely without individual custody reviews. While federal judges have increasingly spoken out against procedural failures in immigration enforcement, public threats of legal consequences over personal property returns remain rare.

The Minnesota ruling sets a firm precedent for enforcing court orders on property returns. Officials now face potential penalties if they continue to disregard judicial directives. The case also reflects wider judicial frustration with federal agencies over immigration-related procedures.

Read also:

Latest