(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) — Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz has ordered Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to appear personally in court to address potential contempt stemming from repeated failures to comply with habeas-related directives connected to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.
Section 1: Overview: Parties, context, and key individuals
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who leads proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, is escalating a custody dispute into a direct accountability hearing for the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The order targets Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons personally, not just agency lawyers. That detail matters because federal judges usually address compliance through counsel first.
Operation Metro Surge sits behind the conflict. ICE has described it as a large federal push that began in December 2025, with thousands of federal agents deployed and thousands of arrests in Minnesota. Courts, however, deal with people one case at a time.
The immediate case centers on Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, who filed a habeas petition challenging the lawfulness of his custody. A habeas petition (often called habeas corpus) asks a judge to review whether detention is lawful and whether the government is holding someone without required process.
A bond hearing is a hearing where an immigration judge may decide whether a person can be released while immigration proceedings continue. A contempt or show-cause order is the court’s demand for an explanation when a party appears to have disobeyed a court directive.
Section 2: Official court order and hearing details
Monday’s order, dated January 26, 2026, directs Todd Lyons to appear in person in a Minneapolis courtroom. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz set a show-cause hearing for January 30, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. CST.
The stated purpose is for Lyons to “show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.” Contempt proceedings in a habeas context usually focus on compliance, not punishment for its own sake.
Here, “compliance” is framed in concrete terms: providing the court-ordered bond hearing within the required window, or releasing Juan Hugo Tobay Robles if that hearing does not occur. Judge Schiltz also added a condition that could narrow the dispute quickly: he said he would cancel the summons if Robles is released before the Friday deadline.
Courts often use conditional cancellation to keep the focus on the urgent custody question and to conserve resources when the core harm is cured. The order therefore ties the personal appearance requirement directly to whether the custody issue is resolved before the hearing.
Action items to monitor: January 30, 2026, 1:00 p.m. CST: whether Todd Lyons appears in person; Before that hearing: whether Juan Hugo Tobay Robles is released, which would trigger cancellation of the summons; After the hearing: any new compliance deadlines, documentation demands, or custody-related directives issued by the court.
Context and timeline snapshot (as described in court materials and related reporting):
- Operation Metro Surge begins (December 2025). ICE has described a large enforcement surge in Minnesota.
- Court directive on custody process (January 14, 2026). The court ordered a bond hearing within seven days or release for Robles.
- Status check cited by court (January 26, 2026). Robles was still detained at Fort Snelling without a bond hearing, per the court order describing continuing noncompliance.
- Show-cause hearing set (January 30, 2026). Todd Lyons was ordered to appear at 1:00 p.m. CST; Judge Schiltz said the summons would be canceled if Robles is released before that date.
Section 3: Key facts and legal context
Juan Hugo Tobay Robles’ habeas petition places his custody status directly before a federal judge. Habeas relief in detention challenges typically seeks prompt process: a hearing, a reasoned decision, or release if the government cannot provide what the court required.
On January 14, 2026, the court ordered ICE to provide Robles a bond hearing within seven days or release him. Deadlines in custody cases are time-sensitive; when a short window passes without the ordered action, judges may treat the lapse as a serious breach.
Judge Schiltz wrote that the Robles dispute was “one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” That explains why the court moved from reminders to enforcement tools: a show-cause hearing forces the agency to explain what happened, what steps were taken, and why contempt should not be used to compel compliance.
Transfers and removals can complicate habeas compliance. When a detainee is moved out of the district, access to counsel and the ability to appear for hearings can change quickly, and enforcement of orders becomes harder in practice.
Courts sometimes respond with no-transfer directives, immediate reporting requirements, or release instructions tailored to a person’s location. The Minnesota litigation has raised concerns about alleged out-of-state transfers to Texas or releases far from home that can frustrate court-ordered process.
Section 4: Operational scope and enforcement metrics
Operation Metro Surge is described by ICE as a large deployment to Minnesota that began in December 2025. ICE has said about 3,000 federal agents have been deployed to the state and reported over 2,500 arrests during the operation’s timeframe.
Scale can collide with court administration: a surge can increase detention numbers quickly and produce more habeas petitions and emergency filings. Each petition still requires individualized responses, timely records, and coordination with detention sites.
Enforcement agencies often cite totals as proof of action, while habeas judges ask narrower questions: Was a bond hearing provided when ordered? Was a person kept in custody in defiance of a deadline? Were attorneys and the court told promptly about movements that affect hearings?
Section 5: Significance, impact, and legal implications
Ordering a national agency leader to appear in person is an escalation that federal courts do not take lightly. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz acknowledged that directly, writing that ordering the head of a federal agency to personally appear is an “extraordinary step.”
Judge Schiltz tied that decision to the breadth of alleged noncompliance, stating that “lesser measures have been tried and failed.” Contempt in this setting is typically designed to compel action: courts may demand sworn declarations, logs of decisions, or proof of steps taken to meet deadlines.
The immediate goal is often to restore compliance quickly when custody is at stake, but contempt proceedings also create a formal record that can shape future oversight, including reporting obligations across related cases.
Broader federal-state tensions form a backdrop. Minnesota officials, including the Minnesota Attorney General and city leaders, filed a separate lawsuit alleging the surge violates the 10th Amendment and intrudes on state sovereignty. That case is separate from the Robles habeas dispute, though similar themes appear in public debate.
Reports of violent incidents during the surge, including fatal shootings of residents Alex Pretti (Jan 24) and Renee Good (early January) by federal agents, have intensified scrutiny. Those events are not the subject of the Robles habeas order but add pressure for documentation, transparency, and adherence to court directives.
Requiring a federal agency head to appear personally is a rare step that signals the court believes ordinary compliance tools have not worked and that judicial patience has run out.
Section 6: Official sources and quotes
Judge Schiltz’s language was unusually blunt for a routine detention dispute: “The Court’s patience is at an end,” he wrote in the January 26, 2026 order.
He also tied the surge’s scope to foreseeable litigation burdens, writing that respondents “decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result.”
Todd Lyons, speaking about Operation Metro Surge on January 14, 2026, framed the operation as a public safety effort: “We’ve arrested over 2,500 criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota since starting this operation with DHS,” Lyons said. “We’re picking up the worst of the worst offenders.”
DHS messaging has also highlighted fraud-related enforcement activity in Minnesota. A USCIS newsroom post dated January 9, 2026 stated: “Minnesota is ground zero for the war on fraud. This operation in Minnesota demonstrates that the Trump administration will not stand idly by as the U.S. immigration system is weaponized by those seeking to defraud the American people.”
Readers should distinguish that broader policy framing from what the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is addressing in habeas: custody, deadlines, and compliance.
For primary documents, readers can review official agency newsrooms and court dockets. ICE posts statements at ICE newsroom, and USCIS posts releases at USCIS newsroom news releases. Court filings are typically accessed through federal court records for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
This article discusses ongoing legal proceedings and government actions. Information reflects court filings and official agency statements as of the dates cited. Readers should consult official court documents and agency statements for latest developments.
