Impeach Kristi Noem For Homeland Security’s Repeated Violations Of Court Orders

IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL ARE REQUIRED WHEN FEDERAL AUTHORITIES DEFY COURT ORDERS As a constituent, I urge Congress to open an impeachment inquiry into Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and to pursue removal from office if willful noncompliance with federal court orders continues within agencies under her authority. The Constitution requires executive officials to faithfully execute the law. When court orders are ignored, delayed, or misrepresented, that duty is breached and Congressional intervention becomes necessary. Court orders exist to protect liberty and prevent unlawful detention; when they are disregarded, individual rights and due process protections are placed at risk, including the risk of unlawful detention or transfer in defiance of judicial authority. A FEDERAL CHIEF JUDGE HAS DOCUMENTED WIDESPREAD NONCOMPLIANCE Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz of Minnesota issued an extraordinary order warning that Immigration and Customs Enforcement must comply with judicial directives and threatening criminal contempt if violations persist. He identified 210 orders in 143 cases involving compliance failures, including missed release deadlines, transfers carried out despite explicit judicial prohibitions, and failures to provide required updates to the court. These findings were detailed in the New York Times article “Chief Judge Accuses Federal Officials of Defying Court Orders in Minnesota Immigration Cases,” published February 26, 2026, which reported the court’s escalating warnings and documented compliance failures. He further wrote that the court was unaware of another time in American history when contempt threats had to be repeated to force the federal government to obey court orders. THE RULE OF LAW IS ENDANGERED WHEN EXECUTIVE POWER IGNORES THE JUDICIARY Two federal judges in Minnesota have already held the administration in civil contempt for disobeying judicial orders. Judge Schiltz warned that continued defiance could lead to criminal contempt, punishable by fines or imprisonment for willful disobedience. If court orders can be disregarded in one district, judicial authority is weakened nationwide. Across the country, federal judges have raised concerns about inaccurate representations and delayed compliance in immigration cases. Continued noncompliance risks normalizing executive defiance of the courts and weakening constitutional safeguards that protect all Americans. SYSTEMIC FAILURES REQUIRE CABINET-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY ICE operates under the Department of Homeland Security, and compliance culture flows from leadership priorities, operational directives, and resource decisions. Judges have noted that government attorneys appear placed in “an impossible position” by enforcement surges and policy choices that overwhelm court processes. Impeachment is not a partisan instrument but a constitutional safeguard reserved for serious defiance of lawful authority. If systemic violations continue, oversight must reach the level where compliance expectations and operational priorities are set. CONGRESS MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY TO RESTORE COMPLIANCE AND PUBLIC TRUST (1) Congress should open an impeachment inquiry to determine whether persistent noncompliance reflects willful disregard of judicial authority and to establish a factual record under oath. An inquiry ensures evidence is gathered formally and responsibility is documented. (2) Congress should compel sworn testimony from DHS, ICE, and Department of Justice leadership so lawmakers can determine how violations occurred, whether compliance failures were systemic, and what directives or policies contributed to them. (3) Congress should require transparent, audited compliance reporting to both Congress and the courts, ensuring that release deadlines, transfer orders, and reporting requirements are tracked, verified, and publicly accountable. Independent verification prevents future mischaracterization of compliance. (4) Congress should condition DHS funding on verified adherence to judicial orders, using appropriations authority to ensure that constitutional obligations are met and that no agency treats court directives as optional. Conditioning funds has long been an effective tool for ensuring compliance. Swift action is necessary to restore constitutional balance before continued noncompliance further weakens judicial authority, erodes public trust, and places fundamental due process protections at risk. Thank you.