发布时间：2026年3月4日，美国东部时间下午4:17 / 更新时间：2026年3月4日，美国东部时间下午4:18 / 作者：德文·科尔
美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）的联邦探员于2026年1月28日在明尼苏达州派恩格罗夫开展移民执法行动。
Shannon Stapleton/路透社/资料图
周二，明尼苏达州圣保罗市中心法庭上，法官杰弗里·布莱恩（Jeffrey Bryan）对特朗普政府提出严肃质问：约两名移民被拘留者的个人财产下落如何？为何不将相关官员以藐视法庭罪论处，以确保这些物品归还给被拘留者？
这一质问引发了一场冗长且时而激烈的听证会。布莱恩是拜登政府时期任命的法官，在听证会上，他与明尼苏达州联邦最高检察官多次争执。这一事件已成为明尼苏达州（被称为”北星之州”）联邦法官与行政部门官员之间紧张关系的最新爆发点。
紧张局势始于今年早些时候特朗普政府在该州实施的移民打击行动，近几周来，法院在处理移民对逮捕和拘留提出的诉讼时，发现存在多次违反法院命令的行为，紧张局势由此持续。
许多移民在法官（包括布莱恩）裁定他们被非法拘留后获释。但在他们进出拘留设施的过程中，布莱恩审理的约24起案件中的非公民被拘留者丢失了现金、手机、衣物以及护照、工作许可证和驾驶执照等关键文件。
[相关文章：ICE探员于2月4日离开明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯的亨利·惠普尔主教联邦大楼。约翰·摩尔/盖蒂图片社]
法官定期威胁司法部在移民案件中提起藐视法庭指控 8分钟阅读
听证会开始后不久，布莱恩与被法官传唤出庭的明尼苏达州美国检察官丹尼尔·罗森（Daniel Rosen）展开了激烈的言语交锋。罗森是特朗普任命的检察官，他指责法官”抹黑”自己和一名副手，称法官警告他们可能因藐视法庭行为被追究责任。
但当布莱恩担心罗森可能完全退出听证会时，他提出以监禁相威胁，迫使罗森参与诉讼。这种监禁属于刑事藐视法庭，与法官正在考虑的民事藐视法庭（以确保财物归还）不同。
布莱恩表示：”我没有排除监禁的后果，不过说实话，先生，我认为这非常、非常不可能。”
他补充说，做出这种决定”将是美国检察官办公室和本辖区历史上的低点”。
听证会最终继续进行，几小时内，罗森和部分移民的律师告知布莱恩，近几天许多物品已被找到并归还给移民。这些解决措施消除了民事藐视法庭的威胁——这是一项旨在迫使遵守法院命令的预期措施。
争议中的法院命令
争议的法院命令是布莱恩指示官员释放一名移民被拘留者时下达的。法官的释放令包含一项标准条款，要求美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）官员归还被拘留者在拘留期间被取走的所有财产。
听证会上明确，在三起案件中，未归还的财产正在被归还给其所有者，但在两起案件中，政府已完全丢失了财物。丢失的物品包括一名妇女的驾驶执照和一名男子的车钥匙、手机和耳机。
罗森向布莱恩表示：”我们非常重视财产丢失这一事实。财产不应丢失，但确实发生了丢失。”他辩称，官员们已尽善意努力寻找这些财物，”再做进一步努力将是徒劳的”。
“我认为这些属于人为错误，而申诉人有权获得赔偿，”他补充道，”没有任何一次法庭命令被违反，没有任何反抗或不服从行为，而这正是藐视法庭所必需的。”
布莱恩未当庭做出裁决，表示可能需要在做出判决前收到更多法律意见。
其他藐视法庭威胁仍悬而未决
在明尼苏达州及全美其他地区，其他法官也对其审理的移民案件中反复出现的违反法院命令行为日益不耐烦，部分法官提出，若政府继续违抗命令，可能对其提起未来的刑事藐视法庭诉讼。
上个月，新泽西州纽瓦克市美国检察官办公室向拜登任命的一名法官表示，应法官要求开展的大规模内部审查发现，自12月初以来，该州数百起移民案件中存在50多起违反法院命令的情况。
周一，美国联邦地区法官迈克尔·法尔比亚尔（Michael Farbiarz）回应这一调查结果时表示，他同情该办公室称这些失败主要是”意外”的说法，但他批评移民和海关执法局（ICE）对这些违规行为表现出明显的漠视，包括在法院命令要求移民在州内等待对其逮捕和拘留提出质疑期间，仍将移民转移出该州。
法尔比亚尔在一份21页的裁决中写道：”问题出在ICE方面。对于法院关于未来合规措施的命令，ICE没有做出任何回应，没有说明如何改进内部流程、培训、监督或如何投入更多资源。”
法官表示，今后在所有移民案件中，只要他命令ICE暂时不得将移民转移出其辖区，他将要求司法部案件律师和ICE官员提交宣誓声明，确认已收到其命令并接受了如何遵守命令的法律咨询。
他在裁决中写道：”要求提交声明具有侵入性，但比实现合规的替代方法（进一步采取可能的刑事藐视法庭诉讼）要温和。”
为一名印度公民辩护的律师迈克尔·Z·戈德曼（Michael Z. Goldman）表示，该法官要求提交声明”清楚表明他的耐心正在耗尽，尤其是对ICE而言”。
戈德曼补充道：”法官在采取更具强制性措施之前，给了政府充分的自我监督机会。”
在西弗吉尼亚州，一名联邦法官上周末猛烈抨击政府继续拘留无犯罪记录的非公民，尽管该州司法辖区的法官多次驳回政府律师在质疑此类拘留的案件中提出的法律论点。
克林顿政府时期任命的法官约瑟夫·古德温（Joseph Goodwin）在裁决中表示：”如果系统性违规行为在法院多次裁定违宪后仍继续发生，本法院将动用其全部固有权力，包括对违抗本法院命令或宪法裁决的官员提起藐视法庭诉讼。”
“在本法院多次裁定此类拘留违反《第五修正案》后，继续未经个性化拘留决定就进行拘留，将导致法律后果，”古德温写道。
然而，在明尼阿波利斯市所在的双城地区，违规行为和藐视法庭威胁的问题最为严重。特朗普的”地铁 surge”行动导致联邦法院收到大量移民对拘留提出的诉讼。
这些诉讼使当地政府的法律资源紧张，导致了不遵守法院命令的模式，很快引发了州内联邦法官与行政部门之间的持续紧张关系。
明尼苏达州州级法院首席法官帕特里克·施尔茨（Patrick Schiltz）对政府在打击行动中的做法以及由此引发的法律纠纷发表了特别尖锐的批评。他上周明确表示，对ICE的耐心已告罄。
他在一份措辞严厉的命令中写道：”本法院不知道美国历史上是否有其他场合，联邦法院不得不一次又一次地威胁以藐视法庭罪，以迫使美国政府遵守法院命令。”
施尔茨是小布什政府任命的法官，他补充道：”本法院将继续采取一切必要措施保护法治，包括必要时采取刑事藐视法庭措施。无论如何，ICE都必须遵守本法院的命令。”
Property lost during immigration crackdown in Minnesota tees up latest showdown court contempt threats
Published Mar 4, 2026, 4:17 PM ET / Updated Mar 4, 2026, 4:18 PM ET / By Devan Cole
Federal agents with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement conduct an immigration enforcement operation in Pine Grove, Minnesota, on January 28, 2026.
Shannon Stapleton/Reuters/File
When Judge Jeffrey Bryan took the bench Tuesday at his courtroom in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota, he had serious questions for the Trump administration: What happened to the personal property of some two dozen immigrant detainees, and why shouldn’t officials be held in contempt as a way of ensuring those items get returned?
The queries set off a lengthy and at times contentious hearing during which Bryan, an appointee of then-President Joe Biden, repeatedly sparred with the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, in what has become the latest flashpoint in a fraught relationship between federal judges in the North Star State and administration officials.
The tension began during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown there earlier this year and continued as courts in recent weeks have identified repeated violations of their orders in cases brought by immigrants challenging their arrest and detention.
Many of those immigrants were ordered released after judges, including Bryan, concluded that they were being held unlawfully. But as they were processed in and out of detention facilities, noncitizens in some two dozen cases before Bryan lost cash, phones, clothing and critical documents such as passports, work permits and driver’s licenses.
[Related article ICE agents depart the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on February 4. John Moore/Getty Images Judges are regularly threatening contempt charges against the DOJ in immigration cases 8 min read]
Almost immediately after the hearing got underway, Bryan and Daniel Rosen, the US Attorney for the District of Minnesota, whom the judge summoned for the proceeding, found themselves locked in a war of words. Rosen, a Trump appointee, accused the judge of “smearing” him and one of his deputies by warning that they may be held accountable for contemptuous behavior.
But the stakes were quickly raised when Bryan, concerned by the possibility that Rosen would bow out of the hearing altogether, floated the possibility of imprisonment to compel his participation in the proceeding. That form of contempt is separate from the civil contempt the judge is weighing to ensure belongings are returned to the immigrants.
“I haven’t ruled out the consequence of imprisonment,” Bryan said. “Although I’ll be honest with you, sir, I think that that’s very, very unlikely.”
Making such a decision, the judge said, “would a historical low point for the office of the United States Attorney and for this District.”
The hearing ultimately continued and over the course of several hours, Rosen and attorneys for some of the immigrants informed Bryan that in recent days many of the possessions had been located and returned to the immigrants. Those resolutions had the effect of removing the threat of civil contempt, a prospective measure intended to force compliance with a court order.
The orders at issue were handed down when Bryan directed officials to release an immigrant detainee. The judge’s release order included a standard provision requiring officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to also return all property taken from the immigrant while they were held in custody.
As the hearing unfolded, it became clear that in three cases, unreturned property was working its way back to its owners, but that in two instances, the government had outright lost belongings. Those lost items include a woman’s driver’s license and a man’s car keys, cell phone and earphones.
“We take very seriously the fact that it’s lost. Property shouldn’t be lost, but property did get lost,” Rosen told Bryan as he argued that officials made good faith attempts to locate the property and that any further efforts to find the stuff would be “futile.”
“I think these fall into the realm of human error. Human error for which the petitioner is entitled to compensation,” he said, adding later: “There was no contempt of court. Not in one single order. There was no defiance, no disobedience, and that’s what’s required for contempt.”
Bryan did not make a decision from the bench and said he may want to receive additional legal arguments in the matter before ruling.
Other contempt threats still loom
Elsewhere in Minnesota and across the US, other judges have similarly grown increasingly impatient with repeated violations of orders in immigration cases they’re handling, with some raising the possibility of future criminal contempt proceedings to punish the government should more defiance arise.
Last month, the US Attorney’s Office in Newark, New Jersey, told an appointee of Biden that a sprawling internal review undertaken at the judge’s behest found more than 50 instances of violations of court orders across hundreds of immigration cases brought in the state since early December.
Responding to the finding on Monday, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz said he was sympathetic to the office’s assertion that the failures were largely accidental, but he chided ICE for what he described as an apparent indifference to the violations, which included moving immigrant detainees out of the state even after a court order said they must be kept there while they challenged their arrest and detention.
[Related article Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino speaks to the media in Minneapolis, on January 22. Steven Garcia/NurPhoto/AP/File Minnesota county attorney investigating Gregory Bovino and other federal officials over immigration crackdown 2 min read]
“The problem is on ICE’s side of the line,” Farbiarz wrote in a 21-page ruling. “In response to the court’s order as to going-forward compliance measures, nothing came back from ICE. Nothing about how it might improve its internal processes. Or its training. Or its supervision. Or how it might bring more resources to bear.”
The judge said that moving forward, in all immigration cases where he ordered ICE to refrain, at least temporarily, from moving a migrant out of his district, he would also require sworn statements to be filed by the Justice Department attorneys in the case and officials from ICE that confirm receipt of his order and that the agency received legal advice on how to comply with it.
“Requiring declarations is intrusive,” he wrote. But, the judge added, “it is less intrusive than an alternative way to achieve (compliance) – further steps down the road toward a possible criminal contempt proceeding.”
Michael Z. Goldman, an attorney for an Indian national whose challenge to his detention set off the internal review ordered by Farbiarz, said his demand for declarations “clearly indicates that his patience is running thin, especially with ICE.”
The judge, Goldman said, “is giving the government ample opportunity to self-police itself before he applies more coercive measures.”
And in West Virginia, a federal judge ripped into the government over the weekend for continuing to detain non-citizens who do not have a criminal record despite opinions from judges in his judicial district that “repeatedly rejected legal arguments” pushed by the administration’s lawyers in cases challenging such detentions.
The judge, Joseph Goodwin, said that if “systematic violations continue despite repeated judicial findings of unconstitutionality, this court will employ the full range of its inherent authority, including … contempt proceedings against officials who defy this court’s orders or constitutional rulings.”
“Continued detention without individualized custody determinations, after this court’s repeated holdings that such detention violates the Fifth Amendment, will result in legal consequences,” Goodwin, an appointee of then-President Bill Clinton wrote in the ruling.
But nowhere has the issue of non-compliance — and the threats of contempt — been more acute than in the Twin Cities, where Trump’s Operation Metro Surge resulted in the federal courts there being inundated with cases brought by immigrants contesting their detention.
The challenges strained the government’s legal resources on the ground there, leading to the pattern of non-compliance that quickly gave way to a sustained tension between the federal judges in the state and the executive branch.
Patrick Schiltz, the chief judge of the state’s trial-level court who has been especially outspoken about the government’s approach to the crackdown and the legal wrangling stemming from it, made clear last week that his patience with ICE had run dry.
“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 wrote in a withering order.
“This court will continue to do whatever is required to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, moving to the use of criminal contempt,” added Schiltz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. “One way or another, ICE will comply with this court’s orders.”
作者：瑞秋·沃尔夫（Rachel Wolf）
