The habeas contempt

Federal District Judge Laura Provinzino (Biden appointee) has found a government lawyer in contempt of court, imposing a $500-a-day fine, for not returning an illegal alien’s ID to him fast enough for her satisfaction.

There is not one bit of hyperbole or exaggeration in the above sentence.

The case involves an apparent illegal alien, Rigoberto Soto-Jiminez, at one time held in ICE custody, and the subject of a successful habeas corpus petition before Judge Provinzino.

In a bureaucratic snafu, Mr. Soto was released from ICE custody minus his personal effects, said to include his identification. Judge Provinzino’s punching bag was a young government lawyer, Matt Isihara, only recently assigned to the habeas beat. Mr. Isihara had the bad luck to be assigned to Mr. Soto’s file, one of 130 on his desk.

Keep in mind that, at any given point in time, there are roughly 70,000 detainees in ICE custody across America.

Also on today’s video hearing was another government lawyer, David Fuller, recently named as the chief of the local U.S. Attorney’s civil division. The reason these two gentlemen were present representing the government this afternoon is because their immediate predecessors quit at the last hearing where contempt charges were merely threatened.

Morale in the U.S. Attorney’s office was already at rock bottom over the flood of nearly 1,000 habeas cases filed in just the past six weeks. With the fines and contempt citations, one would expect it to drop through the floor.

If the judge’s real goal was to speed up compliance with her deluge of orders, the effort was ill-served by her holding a two-hour video hearing during which she recited the current time every few minutes. In Judge Provinzino’s opening remarks, she signally that a contempt filing would be made, the only issue remaining to be determined was the blame assignment.

The facts of the case (File No. 26-cv-957), as best as I can determine since nearly all the documents in this and every other habeas case are kept secret, are as follows.

Rigoberto Soto-Jiminez, from parts unknown, was detained at some point by ICE in Minnesota. On February 2, his private attorney filed a habeas petition, demanding his release. Judge Provinzino issued her first order in the case that same day.

Without hearing from the government, Judge Provinzino issued her next order on February 9, ignoring the clear language of the applicable statute (“shall be detained”) and ordering Mr. Soto’s release by Feb. 13.

The government complied a day early, on February 12, but unfortunately released Mr. Soto in El Paso, rather than in Minnesota, and without his personal property.

Left to his own devices, Mr. Soto made his return to Minnesota via commercial flight (without an ID?). From the testimony presented at today’s two-hour video heading, it’s clear this one case, out of 954 filed in Minnesota so far in 2026, fell through the cracks and involved no small amount of miscommunication between Minnesota and El Paso. But contempt? Daily fines?

I have now sat through several of these contempt hearings (albeit with other judges) that involved identical issues, but without any contempt findings being made

Rather than appreciating the concierge-level service provided by Judge Provinzino, Soto’s lawyer not only kept pressing for a contempt filing, she complained often and bitterly about her own caseload, which as a private lawyer, is entirely voluntary on her part.

Government lawyers are dropping like flies, and perhaps that’s exactly the goal here. If there is no one to respond to habeas lawsuits, (which we learned today don’t even have to be formally served), the plaintiffs will win 100 percent of the time, rather than the more than 90 percent win rate so far.

And they call this “justice.”

Paul Blume of Fox 9 was the only other reporter (via Zoom) attending the video hearing today. You can read his Twitter (X) thread on the proceedings here. Blume reports that Soto’s property is on its way home via overnight delivery. I can’t help but think the same result could have been obtained without the national headlines.

In his Fox 9 report, Blume includes a reaction to the judge’s contempt filing by current U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen,

Following the contempt ruling, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen told the FOX 9 Investigators, “Judge Provenzino’s order is a lawless abuse of judicial power.”

At a minimum.