453
Minnesota judge summons ICE leader to court, threatens contempt sanctions
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
453 points (100.0% liked)
News
36063 readers
2959 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is literally what it says he's going to do. That's what "hold in contempt..." means.
Except it is, again, not the end because they haven't done anything. The judge is only threatening. The end would be doing the thing we all need him to do, the order of contempt.
Am I wrong, but don't they have until Friday? So, we'll find out next week?
The legal system is not designed or meant to be swift. If it is, it is being abused. See: millions of false arrests and innocent people being executed for crimes they did not commit. Real justice takes time, and should be cold, as in not politically or otherwise biased.
Not saying that it is the end, just a step forward
Judges have threatened them with contempt several times now and not a one has followed through.
I think this is the closest they've come and all he did is refer it to an inquiry into whether or not they did commit contempt. An inquiry, that I might add, was immediately put on hold by a court of appeals.
This is not a step forward. It's the same thing over and over. It's nothing but theater until they actually lock them up.
If saying you'll do something is a step forward, then we must have looped the earth by now.
It doesn't though. It means they could be fined or imprisoned.
Sure, but that's definitely closer to jailing these fuckers than we've been so far, right? Progressing (middling as it is) is progress.
If you have faith in these systems, I can see how one might see this as progress. But it's like saying "the wheels are spinning, we must be moving" while stuck in mud. I consider it progress with they do something. When the people that are inflicting violence on random members of the community are physically stopped. When police stop treating unmasked men with guns violating the constitution as allies. When they can't shuffle away murders to relocate them another state, and are instead stopped at the airport. Maybe then I could muster some faith for the judicial system, but as it sits, I don't care if their on the 'double plus super notice squared of the 5th degree warning' they are going to stop nazis in the street for real this time.
Look, either you have faith in the system, and you believe this will help. Or you don't, and you know it won't. It doesn't change anything. What will happen will happen. The wheels are already in motion
What gives you faith in this system?
Nothing. I have no faith in the system, and I would like to see the whole thing torn down and replaced. But since that not happening, I'd rather say and do things that give people hope rather than what I actually believe: Things will have to get much worse before they can get better
That's what they said last time. It's just a perpetual finger wagging at this point.
Hold in contempt can just mean a finding of contempt of court. The judge holds (the oponion that) the person is in contempt
Punishments can then be fines, sanctions, or actual jailing, which is also called being held in contempt.
No - issuing a court order for ICE to depart the state of Minnesota immediately, and that any agents remaining in the state have no jurisdiction or legal standing as far as the state is concerned, and that they can and must be arrested by local and state authorities for breaking those orders would be “something”. Frankly, given that order, it would be completely warranted if cities in Minnesota started responding to ICE reports by dispatching SWAT teams. And hey - that’s actually a way that might significantly improve the public perception of their police forces: actually using their authority to protect citizens from an agency that’s clearly decided laws do not matter to them whatsoever.
Also, yes, that would 100% be a “constitutional crisis” in terms of states challenging the power of the federal government… but…
Really, I’ve lost count. I have no idea where the constitutional crisis count is at this point.
That's what I want to happen, but I'm afraid it will lead to A LOT more civil unrest, nationwide, which unfortunately means more people dying
I simply don’t think there’s a way out of this without some level of violence - primarily because I don’t believe anyone in the regime is going to allow a fair election to occur again - let alone a peaceful transition of power if they lose. If by some miracle they DO hold an election, and it’s fair, and it’s unadulterated, and they lose, the shit they’ll surely pull will make J6 look like a fucking kindergarten play date.
I mean, I agree with you. Things are probably going to get a lot worse before they can get better, and whatever "better" looks like will not be what it was before.