In Minnesota Courtrooms, a Strained Justice System Shows Signs of Fracture

MINNEAPOLIS — The moment was jarring not because of a ruling, but because of a confession.

“This job sucks. The system sucks,” a government lawyer told a federal judge here, her voice breaking as she struggled to explain why court orders were repeatedly being violated in immigration detention cases. She went further still, telling the court she wished she could be jailed for a day “just to get some sleep.”

The lawyer, Julie Lee, was not a defendant. She was representing the federal government.

Her remarks, delivered in open court during a habeas corpus hearing before Judge Jerry Blackwell of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, have become a stark symbol of what judges, attorneys and advocates describe as a system under extraordinary strain — one in which immigration enforcement, staffing collapses and repeated noncompliance with judicial orders are colliding inside federal courtrooms.

The episode came only days after the chief judge of the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, issued an unusually blunt administrative order warning that federal agencies — particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement — had violated dozens of court orders in a single month. In January alone, Judge Schiltz wrote, the court identified at least 96 violations across 74 cases, a figure he said was likely undercounted.

“ICE is not a law unto itself,” Judge Schiltz wrote, adding that while agencies have the right to challenge judicial orders, they must comply with them unless those orders are stayed or overturned.

Together, the order and Ms. Lee’s courtroom breakdown have drawn renewed attention to the internal stresses facing the Justice Department in Minnesota — and to a broader national debate over immigration enforcement, executive power and the capacity of courts to enforce their rulings.

A depleted office, mounting cases

At the center of the crisis is the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota, which multiple current and former officials say has been hollowed out by departures over the past year. Several senior leaders have left, leaving a small cadre of lawyers to handle an expanding docket that includes criminal prosecutions, civil litigation and a surge of immigration-related habeas petitions.

Those petitions — filed by detainees challenging the legality of their confinement — have increased sharply as immigration arrests have accelerated. Each petition requires rapid coordination among federal prosecutors, ICE officials and detention facilities, often under tight deadlines imposed by judges.

Ms. Lee, who previously worked as an immigration attorney representing ICE in administrative immigration court, was brought in to help manage the load. But immigration court, which operates under the executive branch, is fundamentally different from Article III federal court, where judges enjoy constitutional independence and enforce compliance through contempt powers.

In immigration court, the government effectively litigates before its own adjudicators. In federal court, judges expect — and demand — strict adherence to their orders.

That difference, several legal experts say, has become painfully clear.

Judges lose patience

Judge Blackwell, who is overseeing several habeas cases, expressed frustration that orders directing ICE to release detainees or provide information were being ignored or delayed. In response, Ms. Lee described an office stretched to its limits, lacking guidance and struggling to compel ICE compliance.

Her candor, while striking, did not soften the court’s position. Judges have made clear that institutional dysfunction does not excuse defiance of judicial authority.

Judge Schiltz’s order escalated the stakes. He warned that continued noncompliance could lead to show-cause hearings and personal appearances by senior officials, including Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE — a step courts rarely take absent systemic defiance.

Legal scholars say such warnings are a signal that patience has worn thin.

“When a chief judge starts talking about contempt and naming agency heads, that’s not routine docket management,” said one former federal prosecutor familiar with the district. “That’s the judiciary asserting itself.”

Immigration enforcement meets constitutional limits

The Minnesota cases are unfolding against a backdrop of aggressive immigration enforcement under the administration of Donald Trump, whose second term has emphasized rapid detention and removal. Civil liberties groups argue that speed has come at the expense of due process, particularly for migrants arrested far from the southern border.

Habeas petitions have become one of the few mechanisms detainees can use to challenge prolonged or allegedly unlawful detention. Each petition places the federal courts squarely between the executive branch and individuals asserting constitutional rights.

“The courts are the backstop,” said a lawyer who represents detainees in Minnesota. “If orders are ignored, the entire system breaks down.”

Federal judges, unlike immigration judges, cannot simply be overridden by executive preference. Their authority rests on the Constitution — and enforcement depends on compliance by the very agencies now under scrutiny.

A human toll on all sides

While judges have emphasized that compliance failures are “of the government’s own making,” Ms. Lee’s emotional appearance underscored the human cost of institutional breakdown. Colleagues described her as overworked rather than insubordinate, caught between judicial mandates and agency resistance.

“I don’t think anyone believes she wanted to be in that position,” said a former Justice Department attorney. “But sincerity doesn’t cure contempt.”

The courts’ focus remains on outcomes: detainees held without lawful justification, orders unmet, deadlines missed. Sympathy for overburdened lawyers has not translated into leniency for systemic failure.

A confrontation looming

Judge Schiltz’s warning suggests the standoff may be nearing a turning point. Contempt proceedings, if initiated, could compel sworn testimony from senior officials and expose internal communications between ICE and Justice Department leadership.

Such proceedings would mark a rare and serious escalation — one that could reverberate beyond Minnesota.

“This is not just about one district,” said a constitutional law professor. “It’s about whether the executive branch believes it must obey the courts.”

An unsettled balance

For now, the Justice Department says it is working to improve compliance and staffing. ICE has not publicly responded to Judge Schiltz’s order beyond acknowledging receipt.

Inside the courthouse, however, the message has been unmistakable. Federal judges are signaling that institutional dysfunction will not excuse disregard for constitutional process — and that the judiciary is prepared to enforce its authority, even if it means confronting the highest levels of immigration enforcement.

Ms. Lee’s outburst may fade from headlines, but the conditions that produced it remain. In Minnesota’s federal courts, the immigration system is no longer merely strained. It is being tested — by judges, by lawyers and by the limits of executive power itself.