DOJ Lawyer Says System Sucks While Defending Habeas Corpus Failures in St. Paul

(ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA) — A federal habeas corpus process can force the government to justify (and sometimes end) immigration detention that appears unlawful, and it is often the fastest court route for detained people and their families when release orders are delayed or ignored.

The urgency of that process was on display in St. Paul on February 3, 2026, during a federal “show cause” hearing tied to immigration detention release compliance. In that hearing, Julie Le—appearing as Department of Justice counsel for the government in multiple detention-related matters—described a system under heavy strain.

A federal habeas hearing in this setting typically focuses on whether the person’s custody violates the Constitution, federal statutes, or a prior court order, and what the court can do to fix it promptly.

Compliance disputes arise because immigration detention is operationally complex. A judge may order release, but execution can require coordination among ICE officers, detention facilities, transportation units, and government lawyers.

For detained individuals, a missed release deadline can mean days of continued custody, transfers, or restrictive conditions. That is why federal judges treat release compliance as a liberty issue, not paperwork.

1) Incident overview and why it matters in immigration detention

In St. Paul, Judge Jerry Blackwell convened a “show cause” hearing after repeated problems carrying out court-ordered releases. A “show cause” hearing asks the government to explain why it did not comply and what it is doing to prevent repeats.

Julie Le’s role matters because DOJ counsel is the court-facing representative for the government. In practice, government counsel may depend on ICE and detention facilities for real-time facts.

That dependency can become a flashpoint when a judge demands immediate compliance.

2) Key quotes, tone, and what “contempt” really means

Le’s remarks drew attention because they were unusually blunt. The courtroom quotes included: “The system sucks, this job sucks,” and a request that the judge hold her in contempt so she could sleep.

The statements are best read as evidence of workflow breakdowns and acute time pressure, not as a legal finding by themselves.

contempt of court is a court’s power to enforce its orders. In federal court, contempt can be civil (to compel compliance) or, in rarer situations, criminal (to punish past disobedience).

In immigration detention cases, contempt discussions usually center on whether an agency is failing to meet a release deadline or a reporting requirement.

Tone can affect litigation posture. When a judge senses urgency and repeated noncompliance, the court may set shorter deadlines, require sworn declarations, or demand live testimony.

That can accelerate release in some cases, but it can also create emergency motion practice that taxes both sides.

3) Operation Metro Surge: why enforcement surges stress detention logistics

The hearing occurred against the backdrop of “Operation Metro Surge,” described by DHS as a large enforcement initiative in Minnesota. Large-scale operations typically increase arrests, transfers, and bed-space demands.

They can also compress timelines for custody reviews, charging decisions, and court filings. That operational push does not cancel court orders. A release order is binding even during an enforcement surge.

Judges generally view operational priorities as separate from compliance obligations. When multiple agencies and facilities are involved, delays can result from mismatched instructions, late paperwork, or custody transfers that outpace court communications.

4) How habeas compliance works: what “defying court orders” means procedurally

A federal habeas case is often filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where the person is detained. The petitioner challenges custody as unlawful and seeks release or other relief.

In immigration, detainees may also pursue bond or custody review options through EOIR, depending on the detention authority.

When courts talk about “defying court orders” in this context, they generally mean one of these compliance failure points:

• Release paperwork is not transmitted to the facility in time.
• ICE issues the release instruction but the facility delays processing.
• Transport logistics prevent timely release, especially after transfers.
• Internal approvals slow execution or create conflicting directions.
• Government counsel lacks reliable status updates for the judge.

Federal courts have tools to enforce compliance. These may include show-cause orders, evidentiary hearings, sworn declarations, short deadlines, and sanctions. Contempt is an escalation pathway when noncompliance persists.

Decision points where outcomes may vary:

1. Whether the judge orders immediate release versus a compliance plan with milestones.
2. Whether the court requires personal appearance of agency officials.
3. Whether the court imposes reporting requirements or sanctions.

5) Step-by-step: how families and attorneys typically pursue habeas relief for detention problems

Below is a common, real-world sequence in Minnesota and elsewhere. Local rules and judge-specific practices vary.

1. Confirm the legal basis for detention and get key records
   • Documents to gather: Notice to Appear (NTA), I-213 (if available), custody determinations, prior bond decisions, prior release orders, and proof of identity.
   • If there is a release order: Obtain the signed order and any docket entry.
2. Locate the detainee and verify custody status daily
   • Use ICE’s detainee locator and call the facility.
   • Documents to log: date/time, staff names (if provided), and what was said.
3. Assess parallel options in immigration court (EOIR)
   • Some detainees may seek a bond hearing if eligible. Others cannot, depending on the detention statute.
   • Legal framework: Detention authority often arises under INA § 236 (8 U.S.C. § 1226) or INA § 241 (8 U.S.C. § 1231). Procedures differ by posture and circuit law.
4. File the federal habeas petition and emergency motion if needed
   • Court filing: A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, often paired with an emergency motion for immediate release or enforcement of a release order.
   • Typical attachments: custody proof, prior orders, declarations from family, and any facility communications.
   • Service: Follow the district’s rules for serving the U.S. Attorney and relevant federal officials.
5. Prepare for fast court scheduling and sworn declarations
   • Courts may demand a government status report within days, or sooner.
   • Judges may set a show-cause hearing if delays persist.
6. Track compliance after the order issues
   • Even after a win, counsel often monitors execution.
   • Documents to request: release paperwork, conditions of release, and reporting instructions.

6) Staffing strain and why it still does not excuse noncompliance

Reports tied the compliance breakdowns to heavy caseloads and staffing gaps in the Minnesota federal legal apparatus supporting these matters. In practice, vacancies and high caseloads can slow approvals, hamper communication with facilities, and create inconsistent updates to the court.

Even so, federal judges typically treat capacity problems as an administrative issue. They rarely view them as a legal justification to hold someone past a release deadline.

What families and attorneys may realistically see in a surge environment are more emergency hearings, more weekend filings, and closer questioning of agency declarations.

7) Reading official statements versus court orders

DHS statements about public safety goals and arrest totals may help explain the enforcement operation’s aims. They do not resolve what a judge ordered in any individual case.

In compliance disputes, the controlling documents are the docket entries, the release order, and sworn filings about what happened afterward.

To verify claims, prioritize primary sources: federal court dockets and filed declarations. Press releases typically emphasize enforcement priorities, not execution details for release orders.

8) Why this matters: concrete impacts for detainees and the courts

A visible rift between courtroom counsel and operational agencies can signal real pressure points that affect timelines. For detainees, the practical harms of release-order delays can include prolonged custody, transfers that complicate attorney access, and uncertainty that destabilizes families and employers.

For courts, repeated noncompliance can lead to tighter enforcement mechanisms: shorter deadlines, mandatory status reporting, and more frequent show-cause proceedings.

These steps can improve accountability, but they also increase litigation intensity for everyone involved.

Official sources and where to look

– DOJ News (department-wide updates and select litigation statements): https://www.justice.gov/news

– EOIR Immigration Court information (hearing and case tools): https://www.justice.gov/eoir

– USCIS (benefits filings that may intersect with custody strategy): https://www.uscis.gov

Resources:

– AILA lawyer search