U.S. District Judge John Tunheim Imposes Civil Contempt Fines on Homeland Security

(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) — U.S. District Judge John Tunheim threatened civil contempt fines against the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen over ICE’s failure to return personal property to over two dozen released detainees from Minnesota facilities.

Tunheim raised the prospect of sanctions at a contentious contempt hearing on Thursday in Minneapolis, where attorneys for five remaining petitioners said clients still lack items they had when they were taken into custody.

The dispute has turned on what Tunheim framed as a compliance and due-process problem, with released people alleging they left detention without belongings needed to stabilize their lives and meet legal obligations.

Federal courts in Minnesota have increasingly focused on property handling tied to Trump administration immigration enforcement, with judges warning that continued noncompliance could bring harsher consequences for the government.

At Thursday’s hearing, attorneys for the petitioners described missing work permits, Social Security cards, cash, nail guns, Guatemalan Consular IDs, driver’s licenses, and Minnesota IDs.

One example involved cash that attorneys said never came back, including $100 for detainee “Riky.”

Lawyers argued that missing identity and work documents can quickly cascade into broader problems, including the inability to prove identity, keep jobs, travel to appointments, and complete filings that depend on government-issued identification.

Petitioners described ongoing losses and uncertainty even after release, with attorneys telling the court that a missing wallet or work authorization can become a barrier in multiple parts of daily life.

Tunheim indicated he will issue a court order imposing a deadline—potentially around 30 days—for DHS to return items or provide monetary compensation, with daily civil fines if the government misses that timeframe.

He acknowledged a partial DHS shutdown might affect compliance, but he said restitution should come after unlawful detentions.

The judge did not impose fines at Thursday’s hearing, and he has not yet issued the contemplated order.

Tunheim’s warnings made him the second Minnesota federal judge to escalate contempt actions over alleged ICE property mishandling tied to the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge.”

In a parallel set of cases, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan, appointed by President Biden, scheduled a combined contempt hearing for March 3, 2026, in St. Paul covering 28 cases of unlawfully detained immigrants released without belongings like cash, phones, IDs, work permits, and passports.

Bryan warned of potential imprisonment and has not yet ruled.

The scheduling of a combined proceeding has raised pressure for a more uniform federal response, as multiple cases tied to the same operational context converge in one courtroom.

Tunheim’s hearing dealt with a smaller set of disputes, but it carried the same core allegation: people walked out of Minnesota immigration detention without property that officials had taken from them.

Attorneys pressed the court to treat the problem as more than routine administrative error, arguing that the missing items include irreplaceable identity documents and tools needed for work.

Rosen defended the government and urged Tunheim not to treat the issue as defiance.

He said no willful disobedience occurred and argued the remaining problems stemmed from “human error” or “mistakes.”

Rosen also told the court that most of 28 cases are resolved with compensation offered for losses, and only five cases remain outstanding.

In one example he cited, he said a Guatemalan man’s IDs were deemed “futile” to locate.

The government position sought to draw a line between logistical breakdowns and deliberate disregard of judicial orders, while emphasizing efforts to compensate some people for property that cannot be found.

For the petitioners, attorneys cast the unresolved cases as the ones that matter most because the missing items include high-importance documents and equipment that can be difficult or impossible to replace quickly.

Josh Rissman, an attorney involved in the litigation, criticized ICE for inadequate planning to handle property during mass arrests.

Thursday’s hearing also surfaced the operational complications the government says it faces, including Tunheim’s acknowledgment that a partial DHS shutdown might affect the pace of return or compensation.

Even so, Tunheim’s focus remained on what happens to people after release when they still lack documents and belongings they had before detention.

The judge’s contemplated order, including a deadline potentially around 30 days and the prospect of daily civil fines, would push the government to show either return of property or payment in lieu of return.

Civil contempt fines, unlike criminal punishment, are used by courts to compel compliance and can escalate when a party fails to meet a court-ordered schedule.

Tunheim tied the possibility of daily fines to missed deadlines, signaling that delay itself could become costly if the court concludes the government has not acted within the timeframe it sets.

The conflict in Tunheim’s courtroom came against a broader backdrop of judicial frustration in Minnesota over federal compliance in immigration-related proceedings.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz wrote a letter on February 26, 2026, threatening criminal contempt after the government defied over 90 court orders in January 2026, far exceeding typical agency noncompliance.

Schiltz also wrote that DOJ attorneys faced impossible positions under Rosen’s superiors.

Immigration attorneys said the property disputes fit into a wider pattern that has been difficult to audit and hard for detainees to navigate after release, particularly when documents go missing.

Maria Miller, chair of AILA Minnesota/Dakotas, estimated 35 clients missing documents and called it “more the rule than the exception.”

Graham Ojala-Barbour described ICE’s practice as tossing items into a “black box.”

Jennifer Whitlock, of the National Immigration Law Center, suggested reporting to the Government Accountability Office and potential fraud claims.

Those statements and Schiltz’s letter have raised the stakes for DHS and federal prosecutors by signaling that judges may treat repeated failures as rule-of-law concerns rather than isolated clerical mistakes.

The government has argued that it has attempted to resolve most of the disputes through return efforts or compensation, while acknowledging that locating some items can be difficult once people have been moved through facilities and released.

Attorneys for petitioners have pointed to the nature of what is missing—work permits, Social Security cards, and consular IDs—as a sign that the harm goes beyond dollars and cents.

They also argued that tools and equipment, such as nail guns, can represent a person’s ability to earn a living, making delays in return costly even when the item itself is eventually located.

Cash losses, lawyers argued, can be especially destabilizing for people leaving detention who may need immediate funds for food, transportation, temporary housing, and fees associated with replacing documents.

The Minnesota cases have focused on people who were unlawfully detained and then released without belongings, placing the post-release burden on them to reconstruct identity and paperwork while also meeting immigration and court obligations.

Bryan’s upcoming combined hearing for March 3, 2026, covers 28 cases, giving that proceeding a wider scope than Tunheim’s hearing while sharing the same core question: how far a court will go to compel DHS and ICE to fix missing-property failures.

In Bryan’s case, the judge warned of potential imprisonment but has not yet ruled, an escalation that underscores how contempt proceedings can expand if a judge concludes warnings and deadlines do not produce compliance.

Tunheim has not made such a threat, but he signaled a firm step toward a structured order that would require action within a defined timeframe and could impose daily financial pressure if the government misses it.

Rosen’s defense that only five cases remain outstanding framed the remaining disputes as a narrowing tail of unresolved problems.

For the petitioners’ lawyers, those five cases were the point of Thursday’s hearing, as they pressed the court to focus on the items still missing and on the practical fallout for the individuals affected.

No final contempt rulings or fines have been imposed as of these reports, with the latest developments coming in early March 2026.

The next court actions in Minnesota will determine whether DHS and ICE produce property, pay restitution, or face escalating sanctions as judges move from warnings to penalties.

Tunheim’s forthcoming order, if issued with the deadline he discussed, will test whether the Department of Homeland Security can meet a court-driven schedule for returning documents and compensating losses, with civil contempt fines hanging over missed deadlines.