1. United States
2. Wash.
3. Letter

I am writing to demand immediate congressional action to ensure Immigration and Customs Enforcement complies with federal court orders. A recent POLITICO investigation documented systematic defiance of judicial orders during mass deportation operations, revealing a pattern that threatens the foundation of our constitutional system. Over 3,000 court cases have ruled against the administration's detention practices, with judges appointed by presidents from both parties expressing alarm. Judge Harvey Bartle III, appointed by George H.W. Bush, stated that ICE "continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary." Minnesota Chief Federal Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, threatened to haul ICE chief Todd Lyons into court on January 30 over a week-long delay in complying with a release order. The investigation identified six specific methods ICE uses to circumvent judicial authority. These include rapidly transferring detainees across state lines to frustrate habeas corpus petitions, missing court-ordered deadlines, taking weeks to comply with release orders, releasing people without their belongings in dangerous conditions, imposing monitoring restrictions that violate orders to restore pre-arrest status, and conducting constitutionally deficient bond hearings. In one case, a 19-year-old woman was moved from Minnesota to Texas to New Mexico within days, preventing her attorney from filing petitions until her 1-year-old son was badly burned. Judge Christine O'Hearn called ICE's positions "indefensible and illogical" and "knowing and purposeful." When an executive agency systematically defies federal judges, it creates a constitutional crisis that transcends any single policy debate. I urge you to immediately investigate these violations, hold oversight hearings with ICE leadership, and pursue legislation requiring ICE to comply with judicial orders within specified timeframes with meaningful penalties for noncompliance. The rule of law depends on executive agencies respecting judicial authority. No policy objective justifies the systematic defiance of federal courts.