Tomorrow at 9am ET, @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org, @atabatabai.bsky.social, Troy Edwards, and @sranderson.bsky.social will discuss the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, Iran's response, and what may happen next.
Subscribe to receive an alert when the live starts:
from 2023, but evergreen ...
28.02.2026 17:28 — 👍 128 🔁 29 💬 5 📌 0
WOW. 19 people, all who were imprisoned and mistreated in a foreign prison at the direct command of the United States, are brave enough to say “We are innocent, and we will endure more time imprisoned to prove that.”
I can only admire the enormous courage such a move takes.
Those still in VZ are not eligible to apply for inclusion in Boasberg's order, since govt said that would interfere with sensitive foreign relations issues at the moment.
28.02.2026 15:34 — 👍 43 🔁 3 💬 2 📌 0Their willingness to do this suggests to me that they think the govt's evidence that they are, in fact, members of Tren de Aragua is weak.
28.02.2026 14:17 — 👍 263 🔁 70 💬 5 📌 1
That's from a filing yesterday in the JGG case before Judge Boasberg.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Plaintiffs continue their outreach and report here on “the number of Plaintiffs who wish to travel independently to a U.S. port of entry or who wish to be flown from a third country to the United States for their court proceedings, understanding that in both scenarios they will be detained upon arrival.” ECF No. 247 at 7. There are nineteen (19) such Plaintiffs as of the date of this filing. Further details are submitted separately under seal, as ordered by the Court.
Incredible.
19 of the 137 Venezuelans whom Trump sent to CECOT under the Alien Enemies Act, & who were swapped back to VZ & then escaped to 3d countries, seek to come back to the US to contest their Tren de Aragua designation—knowing they'll be detained (& God knows what else) by the Trump Admin.
On Lawfare Daily, @kovarsky.bsky.social joined @rparloff.bsky.social to discuss patronage pardons–pardons a president issues to reward and possibly even induce criminality by political supporters–and ponders whether anything can be done to rein them in. youtu.be/ShnM_n7bEdc
27.02.2026 15:51 — 👍 45 🔁 19 💬 2 📌 1
I got to talk with @lawfaremedia.org and @rparloff.bsky.social about the subject of my article, Patronage Pardons (Duke LJ), which explains how Trump uses pardons to power a loyalty for protection racket.
Podcast: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
Article: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
A draft of Lee's article is available here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
the podcast version is here or wherever you get your podcasts. ...
2/3
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
Prof @kovarsky.bsky.social spoke to me this week about "Patronage Pardons," his upcoming Duke Law Journal article. Those are pardons that reward or even incite criminality by a president's political supporters. Thanks, Lee! The video version is here and ...
1/3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShnM...
Progress, of a sort:
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/u...
From @charliesavage.bsky.social : Hints that Chief Judge Altonaga may have blocked Fort Pearce grand jury, overseen by Judge Cannon, from pursuing US Atty Jason Reding-Quinones's "grand conspiracy" probe. But not clear, & Miami grand jury proceeds.
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/u...
After MN's US Atty Rosen attacked the accuracy of his figures, Chief Judge Schiltz double-checked his list of 96 violations of court orders in 74 cases in MN for January. The recount showed 97 violations in 66 cases. But there’s more ...
1/4
CORRECTION: Judge Schiltz was appointed by GW Bush, not Reagan.
27.02.2026 12:07 — 👍 24 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0in post 3: *not* aware of another occasion ...
27.02.2026 00:55 — 👍 78 🔁 4 💬 1 📌 0
The corrected original list (97 violations) is here:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The new “appendix B” (113 violations) is here:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
He concludes by vowing to escalate to “criminal contempt” if necessary to achieve compliance.
Full order here:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Schiltz comments: “The court is now aware of another occasion in the history of the US in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt—again and again and again—to force the United States government to comply with court orders.”
3/4
Schiltz then asked his judges do more research. Today he released a new list of 113 orders that were violated in 77 other cases—all in addition to his corrected original list.
2/4
After MN's US Atty Rosen attacked the accuracy of his figures, Chief Judge Schiltz double-checked his list of 96 violations of court orders in 74 cases in MN for January. The recount showed 97 violations in 66 cases. But there’s more ...
1/4
Attached to this order as Appendix A is the result of the Court's attempt to verify the accuracy of the assertions made in the January 28 order. Appendix A includes only cases that appeared in the appendix to the January 28 order. The Court did in fact find -3- CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM • Doc. 12 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 6 some mistakes— mistakes that cut both ways. But the bottom line is that ICE violated 97 orders in 66 of the cases referred to in the January 28 order. The January 28 order had identified "96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases." ECF No. 10 at 2. Obviously, the January 28 order was not "beyond the pale of accuracy," as claimed by Rosen.
![Finally, in his February 9 email, Rosen said:
For our part, we commit to the court that we will redouble our efforts to achieve compliance by our client across the board. The truth is that efforts we have already been undertaking for weeks have led to considerable improvement - efforts which have apparently gone unrecognized by some on the bench, even though the numbers prove them out. We will continue to try to find the ways to improve.
This, too, appears to be untrue. Attached as Appendix B is a list of additional
cases in which ICE has violated court orders, most of which violations occurred after
entry of the January 28 order. Despite Rosen's assurance of "redoubled]" efforts that
have "led to considerable improvement," Appendix B documents 113 additional orders
that ICE has violated in 77 additional cases - again, above and beyond the 97 orders that
ICE violated in the 66 cases identified in Appendix A.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreicibkxc3ipc3h7kgnxo4zerpypiuljchwtjrcttcyixmmuog62wa4@jpeg)
Finally, in his February 9 email, Rosen said: For our part, we commit to the court that we will redouble our efforts to achieve compliance by our client across the board. The truth is that efforts we have already been undertaking for weeks have led to considerable improvement - efforts which have apparently gone unrecognized by some on the bench, even though the numbers prove them out. We will continue to try to find the ways to improve. This, too, appears to be untrue. Attached as Appendix B is a list of additional cases in which ICE has violated court orders, most of which violations occurred after entry of the January 28 order. Despite Rosen's assurance of "redoubled]" efforts that have "led to considerable improvement," Appendix B documents 113 additional orders that ICE has violated in 77 additional cases - again, above and beyond the 97 orders that ICE violated in the 66 cases identified in Appendix A.
In addition to reviewing his prior cited cases, Schiltz presents more than 100 additional instances of noncompliance.
Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![As noted, Rosen asserted in his email that "[t]he lawyers in my civil division
didn't deserve" the supposedly inaccurate January 28 order. Putting aside the fact that
the January 28 order was not inaccurate, Rosen failed to mention that this Court said the
following in the show-cause order that preceded the January 28 order:
The Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Ana Voss and her colleagues [in the civil division], who have struggled mightily to ensure that respondents comply with court orders despite the fact that respondents have failed to provide them with adequate resources.
ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1.
The judges of this District have been extraordinarily patient with the government
attorneys, recognizing that they have been put in an impossible position by Rosen and
his superiors in the Department of Justice (leading many of those attorneys- including, unfortunately, Ana Voss- to resign). What those attorneys "didn't deserve" was the
Administration sending 3000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making
any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreicr5bo7wzyf54cgwvlf5ada722e6fs6b5f2ycbxh33lqnwi57m3ve@jpeg)
As noted, Rosen asserted in his email that "[t]he lawyers in my civil division didn't deserve" the supposedly inaccurate January 28 order. Putting aside the fact that the January 28 order was not inaccurate, Rosen failed to mention that this Court said the following in the show-cause order that preceded the January 28 order: The Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Ana Voss and her colleagues [in the civil division], who have struggled mightily to ensure that respondents comply with court orders despite the fact that respondents have failed to provide them with adequate resources. ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1. The judges of this District have been extraordinarily patient with the government attorneys, recognizing that they have been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice (leading many of those attorneys- including, unfortunately, Ana Voss- to resign). What those attorneys "didn't deserve" was the Administration sending 3000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow.
If anything is "beyond the pale," it is ICE's continued violation of the orders of this Court. Increasingly, this Court has had to resort to using the threat of civil contempt to force ICE to comply with orders. The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt -again and again and again - to force the United States government to comply with court orders. -5- CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM Doc. 12 Filed 02/26/26 Page 6 of 6 This Court will continue to do whatever is required to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, moving to the use of criminal contempt. One way or another, ICE will comply with this Court's orders. Dated: February 26, 2026 (s/ Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court
BREAKING: Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota threatens criminal contempt, if necessary, to address ICE noncompliance in an order calling out U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen's response to Schiltz's earlier questions about noncompliance with court orders.
"ICE will comply with this Court's orders."
26.02.2026 20:17 —
👍 66
🔁 9
💬 2
📌 0
Judge Bryan issues order to show cause why respondents should not be held in civil or *criminal* contempt for violating orders in these 28 cases. Wants US Atty Dan Rosen before him person on Tuesday.
26.02.2026 20:15 — 👍 412 🔁 121 💬 11 📌 13UPDATE: Judge Royce Lamberth has set a hearing on this motion — alleging violations of his Feb. 19 court order — for 2:30 p.m. today.
26.02.2026 16:38 — 👍 780 🔁 222 💬 11 📌 3
How does an office too understaffed to respond to detainees’ release petitions or obey release orders once issued or file status reports have staff to appeal a vacated civil contempt fine where the only defense was to beg for the “good graces” of the court?
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/less...
As others have reported, US Atty Daniel Rosen in MN has appealed the civil contempt fine against the special assistant US atty in his office, even though the fine was purged before the SAUSA ever had to pay it. Which raises a question in my mind. ...
1/ 2
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Porter closes by saying he wants to believe DOJ, but he clearly still wonders if it chose to use the search, rather than just a subpoena, in order to try to learn Natanson’s other sources, unrelated to the criminal case that was the stated basis for the search.
9/9-end
