(NEW JERSEY) — The Department of Justice acknowledged multiple failures to follow district court orders in New Jersey immigration habeas cases, prompting a judge to demand an affidavit outlining future compliance safeguards.
1) Overview of the case and parties involved
Associate Deputy Attorney General Jordan Fox disclosed in a court filing that federal authorities did not comply with dozens of court directives tied to immigration detention litigation in New Jersey federal courts. The disclosure landed before U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, who is overseeing related habeas matters and assessing what the violations mean for judicial control of detention decisions.
Habeas petitions are a core vehicle for detained immigrants to ask a federal court to review custody and enforce limits on government action. In immigration detention, that oversight can include orders that set bond-hearing deadlines, bar transfers that would frustrate access to counsel, and require the government to produce evidence supporting detention or removal-related custody decisions. When a district court issues such orders, they carry enforceable weight. Noncompliance can erode due process protections in practical, case-specific ways, even if a violation is later corrected.
2) Scope of violations in New Jersey
Jordan Fox’s declaration described 56 instances of noncompliance across 547 habeas corpus petitions filed since early December in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. The categories show recurring pressure points in detention-related litigation: physical custody location, hearing timing, evidence production, and deadline discipline by government counsel.
Transfers outside New Jersey are a concrete example. When a judge orders ICE not to move a detainee out of state, the goal is often to preserve the court’s ability to supervise the case and the person’s ability to consult counsel quickly. A transfer can also scramble scheduling, delay filings, and make a bond hearing less meaningful.
Missed bond-hearing related deadlines raise a different concern. Timing is often the point of habeas review in detention cases. A late hearing can turn a court-ordered remedy into something closer to after-the-fact review.
Evidence-production failures go to the integrity of adjudication. A court cannot test the legality of custody when required declarations, records, or other ordered materials do not arrive. Even short delays can matter when detention is ongoing.
Missed filing or response deadlines by government attorneys have similar effects. Habeas litigation moves on tight timeframes because custody is immediate. When deadlines slip, the person detained may wait longer for a decision or remain in limbo while the court tries to restore order to the schedule.
Improper release conditions and an improper removal are among the most serious categories described. Release conditions that a court prohibited can function as continued restraint after the judge has limited the government’s authority. A removal that violates an injunction carries an obvious risk: it can place someone beyond practical reach of the court before review is complete.
| Violation category | Count (NJ) | Example impact |
|---|---|---|
| Out-of-state transfers despite no-transfer orders | 17 | Can disrupt access to counsel and impede court supervision of custody |
| Missed bond-hearing deadlines | 12 | Delays hearings that may be central to challenging ongoing detention |
| Failure to produce evidence ordered by courts | 10 | Limits the court’s ability to assess custody legality on the required record |
| Missed filing deadlines by government attorneys | 6 | Can stall habeas adjudication and extend detention while issues are corrected |
| Missed deadlines to respond to court orders | 6 | Weakens court management of urgent custody litigation and compresses petitioner time |
| Improper release conditions contrary to court prohibitions | 3 | Can impose restraints a judge barred, despite ordered relief |
| Improper deportation to Peru in violation of an injunction | 1 | Risks removal before meaningful judicial review; may be hard to remedy |
3) Official response and characterization
Jordan Fox characterized the violations as “unintentional” and said they were addressed once discovered. She wrote: “We regret deeply all violations for which our Office is responsible. Those violations were unintentional and immediately rectified once we learned of them.” Fox also pointed to operational and coordination problems, including “logistical delays in communicating,” particularly around the out-of-state transfers.
Judge Michael Farbiarz responded with two messages that can coexist in federal practice. One was praise for candor. On February 18, he credited Fox’s staff for transparency and thorough answers. The other message was sharper: “Judicial orders should never be violated.” That framing matters. Courts can treat noncompliance as a systems problem even when it is not described as intentional, because the court’s priority is preventing repeat events and avoiding harm that cannot be undone.
Intent also does not control the effect on an individual case. In detention litigation, days can decide whether someone remains jailed, receives a timely bond hearing, or can confer with counsel before a key filing. Even corrected mistakes can have lasting consequences if the person lost a hearing slot, missed a chance to submit evidence, or was moved far from counsel.
⚠️ Warning: Noncompliance with habeas-related orders can affect access to counsel, timing of hearings, and risk of improper removal.
4) Judicial actions and next steps
Michael Farbiarz’s main procedural response was forward-looking. He ordered the Department of Justice to submit an affidavit detailing procedures designed to ensure compliance with district court orders in these immigration habeas matters.
An affidavit of this type is not simply a promise. It is a formal statement that can lock in accountability and give the court a concrete yardstick for monitoring performance. In many cases, “procedures to ensure compliance” typically include:
- Training for attorneys and operational staff on court-ordered restrictions, including transfer bars and evidence obligations
- Escalation channels for time-sensitive orders, so problems are flagged before deadlines expire
- Deadline tracking systems for filings, responses, and bond-hearing related timetables
- Transfer controls to prevent ICE moves that conflict with no-transfer orders from New Jersey federal courts
- Evidence-production workflows that tie court orders to specific internal tasks, with named responsibility and follow-up checks
For detained petitioners, the practical value of such measures is speed and predictability. If compliance improves, courts may spend less time repairing process failures and more time deciding the core legal question: whether detention complies with federal law and constitutional requirements.
✅ Information: Judge orders an affidavit detailing procedures to prevent future violations; safeguard steps typically include training, escalation channels, deadline tracking, transfer controls, and evidence-production workflows.
5) Broader context and national pattern
New Jersey is not the only jurisdiction seeing judges confront compliance problems. In Minnesota, a federal judge found 94 violations of court orders in January. Judges in multiple courts have described order violations as widespread, using terms such as “rampant” and “purposeful” in the course of reviewing detention and removal-related litigation.
A “national pattern,” in practical terms, means similar categories of breakdown show up across different districts. Transfers occur even when courts bar them. Deadlines slip in cases that are supposed to move quickly. Evidence does not arrive when ordered. Courts focus on these categories because they are the mechanisms by which judicial review can be made ineffective.
Federal judges tend to respond strongly for institutional reasons as well. Court orders are the tool that makes rights enforceable in real time, particularly when a person is detained. When noncompliance becomes repetitive, judges may tighten oversight, demand sworn process commitments, or consider sanctions in severe circumstances. Those responses are not guaranteed in any single case, but the direction of travel is clear: more scrutiny of whether ICE and government counsel can reliably carry out what the court ordered.
6) Key dates and timeline
Early December marks the start of the habeas petition window referenced in the disclosure, covering 547 habeas corpus petitions filed in New Jersey federal courts. That timing matters because habeas cases often involve accelerated schedules. Orders about bond hearings, evidence production, and transfers are commonly tied to specific deadlines.
January is the timeframe for the Minnesota court’s finding of 94 violations, which helps explain why New Jersey’s disclosure drew immediate attention. Courts tend to weigh whether problems look isolated or repeated across districts.
February 18 is when Judge Farbiarz addressed the disclosure in court, praised transparency, and still insisted that orders must be followed. He then required the affidavit describing compliance procedures. The date is more than a calendar marker. It sets the point from which the court expects controlled processes, not improvised fixes, when new habeas petitions arrive and urgent detention issues come up.
For readers tracking what may happen in similar cases, the lesson is procedural as much as legal: deadlines drive whether habeas relief is meaningful. Transfer restrictions can determine whether counsel access is real. Evidence orders shape whether a judge can evaluate detention lawfully. These are not technicalities. They are the structure of review.
This article discusses legal proceedings and government actions. The information reflects court filings and official statements and should not be construed as legal advice.
Readers should consult qualified immigration counsel for case-specific guidance.
