by Jordan Rubin | Jan 29, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
When Minnesota’s chief federal trial judge, Patrick Schiltz, took what he called the “extraordinary step” of ordering the head of U.S. immigration enforcement to appear in court this Friday to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt, the judge also gave the government a way out. He said the acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief, Todd Lyons, could avoid appearing if his agency released an immigrant whose unlawful detention sparked the judge’s order. ICE released the man and now Lyons doesn’t have to appear.
“That does not end the Court’s concerns, however,” Schiltz wrote Wednesday.
The judge, who clerked for conservative icon Antonin Scalia and was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, took another extraordinary step: He attached a document to his latest order that listed 96 court orders that ICE had violated in 74 cases. The judge made clear that the list was probably an undercount and is limited to orders issued this month.
“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” Schiltz wrote.
“ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” the judge went on, warning that future noncompliance “may result” in orders threatening contempt like the one he issued in this case.
“ICE is not a law unto itself,” he wrote.
He noted that the man in this case, identified in court papers as Juan T.R., could seek monetary sanctions.
Schiltz’s order is a shocking sign of the moment we’re in, both for the lawlessness that it exposes and for the fact that nothing guarantees there will be any serious consequences for
by Jordan Rubin | Jan 27, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
The Trump administration suffered its latest loss in a series of failures to install its preferred lawyers atop the nation’s U.S. attorney’s offices without Senate confirmation. The most recent rejection came from a majority of the judges on the federal appeals court covering New Jersey, where the administration had sought to place Alina Habba as head of that district’s office.
A judge had ruled in August that Habba, a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump, was unlawfully serving in that prosecutorial post. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the ruling last month, while observing that it was “apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place.”
The administration then pressed for a rehearing from the full complement of judges on the Philadelphia-based appeals court, arguing that the three-judge panel’s legal interpretation “would hobble Presidential transitions and has been routinely violated by the last four administrations without any court holding the practice unlawful.” Although Habba stepped down after the panel’s ruling (and moved to a different position at the Justice Department), the administration said that didn’t moot the issue, noting that she intended to return to the U.S. attorney’s office if the decision were reversed.
On Monday, a majority of the appeals court rejected rehearing, over dissent from three judges appointed by Trump. Notably, that didn’t include Emil Bove, one of the president’s appointees to the appeals court, who attended a Trump rally last month. Bove wasn’t listed among the judges who participated in the rehearing decision. He may have been involved in the matter on the administration’s behalf when he was at the Justice Department prior to his judicial appointment, so if his apparent lack of
by Jordan Rubin | Jan 26, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
When you hear the phrase “destroying or altering evidence,” it might conjure an image of a criminal organization hell-bent on covering up its misdeeds. As it happens, a judge appointed by Donald Trump just used those words in an order against Trump administration officials and employees, temporarily barring them from taking such actions after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minnesota on Saturday.
Federal officials and their employees “are ENJOINED from destroying or altering evidence related to the fatal shooting involving federal officers that took place in or around 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, including but not limited to evidence that [federal] Defendants and those working on their behalf removed from the scene and/or evidence that Defendants have taken into their exclusive custody,” U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud wrote in his temporary restraining order Saturday. He set a hearing for Monday afternoon and said the federal government can also respond in writing ahead of time.
Tostrud, whom Trump appointed to the bench in his first term, entered the order in response to an emergency motion from state officials.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office wrote to the judge that they “have a sovereign interest in exercising their police powers and in investigating potential violations of Minnesota’s criminal laws,” and that the federal government’s “hasty removal of evidence from the scene of the [Department of Homeland Security]-involved shooting, contrary to ordinary protocols and the State’s sovereign right of parallel access to that evidence, violates that sovereign interest of the State and creates an unacceptable risk that the evidence will be permanently destroyed or altered before
by Jordan Rubin | Jan 23, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
“Will the Department of Justice try to file charges against Jack Smith?” — Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Smith himself said he thinks so.
Answering a question on the subject during his congressional testimony on Thursday, the former special counsel said he believes the Justice Department “will do everything in their power to do that, because they’ve been ordered to by the president.”
During the hearing, a post on Donald Trump’s Truth Social account said the president hoped that Attorney General Pam Bondi “is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me.” A subsequent post from Trump said: “Based on his testimony today, there is no question that Deranged Jack Smith should be prosecuted for his actions” and that, at minimum, “he committed large scale perjury!”
It’s clear that Trump wants Smith charged, but it’s unclear for what. The president didn’t specify what “crooked and corrupt witnesses” he was referring to, and it’s unclear what crime that gets at, in any event. He specified perjury, which is a crime, but he didn’t mention what he thought Smith said that was perjurious. Perhaps the Trump Justice Department will have dedicated resources for scouring the former special counsel’s testimony for anything that could qualify. This would seem to be a difficult assignment, though it’s the type of task that the president’s servile underlings have been willing to carry out.
On that note, it’s worth pausing for a moment to ask why Smith said he thinks the Trump DOJ will try to charge him. He said it’s “because they’ve been ordered to by the president.” In a hearing filled with what should have
by Jordan Rubin | Jan 23, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
There’s an old saying that a lawyer shouldn’t ask a question they don’t know the answer to. That wisdom usually arises on cross-examination, when a witness takes a lawyer into unknown territory. But it’s at least as true for questions that a lawyer prepares to ask ahead of time.
So it was strange, during Jack Smith’s congressional testimony on Thursday, when Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., asked Smith a seemingly prepared question about the gag order Smith got against Donald Trump in the federal election interference case. Cline, whose House bio says he previously worked as an attorney, asked the former special counsel: “In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate [that] justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate, was there?”
This was an odd question, because U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had granted Smith’s motion to restrict statements targeting people involved in the proceedings. The judge wrote: “Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant [Trump] has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.” She added that the defense argument “that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable.”
When Smith pointed out to Cline that the prosecutor didn’t have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion, the Republican initially responded, “Actually,” before stumbling around for a bit and then ultimately settling on: “The gag order was restricted, correct?”
He was apparently referring to the fact that the appeals court upheld Chutkan’s order while also narrowing it. Yet Smith’s response shows that the narrowing doesn’t
by Jordan Rubin | Jan 22, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog
The Supreme Court checks Donald Trump every now and then. The latest example of this sporadic phenomenon was seemingly on display at Wednesday’s hearing in Trump v. Cook, over the president’s bid to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors long before her Senate-confirmed term is up in 2038.
We won’t know how the court will rule until it issues a decision at an uncertain date in the future. But questions from justices across the ideological spectrum highlighted the extreme nature of the administration’s stance, in a case involving a key financial body whose independence the court cares about more than that of other federal agencies.
At the center of the legal dispute is the Federal Reserve Act’s provision that presidents can prematurely remove governors “for cause,” a term that isn’t defined in the law.
Arguing for the administration, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer conceded that Trump can’t remove Cook over a policy disagreement. But he insisted that the president can remove her over an unproven claim of possible mortgage fraud from before she joined the board.
He argued that courts can’t even review Trump’s rationale for wanting to remove Cook.
Justice Elena Kagan observed that under Sauer’s position, it would be impossible to test whether a removal is over a policy disagreement at all. “There’s no way for a court to evaluate that. The president just has to say: I’m removing you for cause,” the Obama appointee said.
Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh said that if there’s no process or judicial review required, “that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
Overall, the hearing suggested an impending loss for Trump, though it’s unclear on exactly what grounds.
A complicating factor is that the
