Federal judges are slowly realizing they can treat the Trump administration like anyone else, a growing trend that has seen several judges in recent weeks take legal action against the administration for its repeated violations of court orders. In Minnesota, two federal judges have held the government in civil contempt, while others have threatened criminal contempt if compliance is not achieved.

Minnesota Judges Take Action Against Trump Administration

Last week, Minnesota’s top federal prosecutor, Daniel Rosen, appeared before two federal district court judges—Biden appointee Jeffrey Bryan and Clinton appointee John Tunheim—to explain why the Trump administration had not fully complied with court orders. The judges had directed the government to release dozens of unlawfully detained individuals and return their personal belongings. However, the administration released 28 detainees but kept their cash, phones, driver’s licenses, passports, and work permits, prompting both judges to hold hearings.

During the March 3 hearing, Bryan expressed concern that ordering Rosen’s imprisonment would be a “historical low point” for the U.S. Attorney’s office. However, he left the door open to the possibility, stating it was “very, very unlikely.” Bryan was also clear that the administration’s actions were “very, very unlikely” to lead to such a decision, but he did not rule it out.

Bryan and Tunheim’s actions followed a broader pattern of judicial enforcement. Since August, federal judges have issued at least 35 orders requiring the Trump administration to explain why it should not be held in contempt. Twice in February, Minnesota judges held the administration in civil contempt, and twice more in the past two weeks, judges in Minnesota and New Jersey threatened criminal contempt.

Judges Begin Holding Government Accountable

Last month, Judge Laura Provinzino, a Biden appointee, held federal prosecutor Matthew Isihara in civil contempt over his mishandling of the case of Rigoberto Soto Jimenez, a detainee who filed a habeas petition in early February. Provinzino ordered the government to release Soto Jimenez by February 13 and to confirm that it had done so by February 17. However, Soto Jimenez was released in Texas without his documents and had to spend the night in a homeless shelter before his attorney flew him back to Minnesota using personal airline miles.

Provinzino then imposed a $500 fine for each day after February 19 that Soto Jimenez was without his property. Isihara requested the court to exercise its “discretion” and “good graces” in light of the administration’s caseload, but Provinzino rejected this, stating that the government could not use the “I’m too busy” excuse to justify disobedience of court orders.

The government returned Soto Jimenez’s ID, allowing Isihara to avoid paying the fine. However, on February 23, Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, found the administration in contempt again under similar circumstances. Tostrud had ordered the government not to remove a detainee from Minnesota while his habeas petition was pending. After the government transferred the man to Texas anyway, Tostrud ordered it to bring him back to Minnesota by the end of the day on January 24.

The government released the detainee but did so in Texas without returning any of the man’s belongings, forcing his lawyer to pay $568.29 for airfare to fly him back to Minnesota. Tostrud ordered the administration to pay back the $568.29, but later vacated the monetary award for technical reasons. However, he did not vacate the underlying contempt finding and suggested that there might be other legal grounds for requiring the government to pay for its actions.

Judges Assert Authority Over Federal Government

Other judges have also begun to assert their authority over the federal government. On March 2, Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee in New Jersey, considered fining or imprisoning members of the Trump administration for violating court orders. Farbiarz wrote that the “everyday rules of the road” in litigation still apply to the federal government. “A federal official can be held in contempt. So can a federal agency,” he said. “And if federal officials or a federal agency are held in contempt, the full range of contempt sanctions is available.”

Farbiarz ultimately did not hold the administration in criminal contempt, acknowledging that doing so would be a “last resort.” However, he warned that if violations continued, he would consider criminal contempt a more viable option. “Local ICE leaders must square up to the serious problem in their midst of non-compliance with judicial orders,” he wrote. “In the event of future violations, the ball will start off at a different place.”

Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, also threatened the Trump administration with criminal contempt late last month after listing 96 court orders that ICE had violated across 74 cases. Schiltz concluded that the agency “has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” He promised to do “whatever is required to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, moving to the use of criminal contempt.”

Schiltz’s threat was sufficient to secure compliance with his order, but he stressed that he remained concerned by the administration’s lawlessness. He wrote that the judges of his district had been “extraordinarily patient” with the government attorneys. “The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt—again and again and again—to force the United States government to comply with court orders,” he said.

The Trump administration has shown that it will continue to violate court orders until courts force it to stop. As judges begin to remember their responsibilities to enforce the rules by which everyone else must abide, they are also recognizing the full range of tools available for enforcement. This trend suggests that the federal judiciary is becoming more assertive in holding the executive branch accountable for its actions.