A Minnesota federal judge said she’s fed up with excuses from federal prosecutors that they don’t have enough resources to comply with court orders but agreed to pull back penalties against a Justice Department lawyer.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the US District Court for the District of Minnesota said Friday she wouldn’t impose fines on a government lawyer for releasing a detained immigrant without his identification documents, now that the documents were returned. The order resolves a civil contempt finding against special assistant US attorney Matthew Isihar issued earlier this week.
However, the judge expressed exasperation at the Minnesota US attorney’s office’s conduct in immigration cases since the start of the Trump administration’s heightened enforcement operation in the state. She warned the court won’t tolerate further violations of court orders.
“This Court has been exceedingly patient with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and has granted its attorneys (including SAUSA Isihara) grace multiple times before when disobedience came to light,” Provinzino wrote. “But at this point, the refrain of ‘understaffing’ and ‘too many cases’ has worn out its welcome, particularly when it comes at the expense of individual rights.”
Federal judges in Minnesota have increasingly expressed frustration at government lawyers’ non-compliance with their orders in immigration cases, after the Trump administration multiplied immigration agents there in Operation Metro Surge.
Read more: Migrant Detentions Spur Crushing Workload for US Prosecutors (2)
In Friday’s order, Provinzino detailed the government’s record of failing to comply with orders in deadlines in the case, a habeas challenge brought by Mexican citizen, Rigoberto Soto Jimenez, who has lived in Minnesota since 2018 and is married to a US permanent resident.
The judge also cited nine other instances in which government lawyers have sought to excuse disobedience before Minnesota federal court judges in other cases.
Provinzino, a former federal prosecutor herself, said she has “immense respect for the dedicated attorneys of that office who live out its vital mission of doing justice.” However, it has “become painfully clear over the past several months” that the lawyers working on habeas cases at the office lack the resources and training to comply with the judicial orders, she added.
“Administrative burden has never been a reason to sacrifice the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals,” she wrote, saying that she “is not about to go down that road now.”
“To do so would essentially allow the federal government to dictate when it is convenient for it to respect the rights of individuals—citizens and noncitizens alike,” she said.
The case is Soto Jimenez v. Bondi, D. Minn., No. 0:26-cv-00957, 2/20/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: