Federal immigration officials held in contempt for disobeying court orders

ICE agents arrested a man despite a court order requiring his release from immigration detention.(CN) — Federal immigration officials failed to obey court orders and arrested a man just two months after his ordered release from immigration detention, a Pennsylvania judge ruled Monday.As a result, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Philadelphia Field Office Director John Rife were held in civil contempt and ordered to pay attorney fees and related costs.U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Maureen Kelly said the officials also failed to comply with an order to produce body camera footage and provided inconsistent explanations and questionable sworn statements about the arrest.Kelly said the June 26, 2026, arrest of Nain Vasquez Gonzalez by Department of Homeland Security agents was “unauthorized and unlawful.”While the circumstances of the arrest are disputed, Kelly said federal immigration officials failed to justify it or explain why they ignored court orders.She said their filings presented in defense contained “baffling inconsistent and changing stories.”Gonzalez claims the agents asked whether his name was Fernando Daniel, did not believe him when he said no and refused to review his identification.Officials told the judge that ICE agents were searching for “intended targets” during a “nationwide surge in enforcement” that day and that Gonzalez resembled one of them, despite reportedly wearing a surgical mask.They claimed agents photographed Gonzalez and analyzed the image using facial recognition software on their cellular devices.Gonzalez was held for 11 hours before being released.The arrest violated a court order granting his release from immigration detention, after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Gonzalez’s detention was unconstitutionally prolonged.His more than three years spent in immigration detention was largely attributable to failures by the Board of Immigration Appeals to comply with the Circuit Court’s mandates, Kelly wrote.“The problem - beyond, of course, the issue of petitioner’s underlying arrest in direct violation of the order granting him habeas relief from his immigration detention, is how much effort it has taken to get to this point as the result of respondent’s conduct,” Kelly added.In one of several sworn declarations, ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Michael B. Smith said he reviewed two hours of body camera footage from the 20 arrests made that day but found no video of Gonzalez.Smith said ICE policy requires body cameras only under certain circumstances, which he speculated did not apply to Gonzalez’s arrest.The arresting officer told the court his body camera was not operational because the battery had not been charged.Kelly said immigration officials also failed to timely comply with court orders to identify the arresting officer.Assistant Field Office Director John Belluardo said in a declaration that officials could not readily identify the officers involved because they wore masks to obscure their identities for security. He also said none of the officers questioned recalled interacting with Gonzalez.Kelly said the declarations contained seemingly conclusive factual statements from individuals who, upon review, lacked independent knowledge to support what they had attested to under oath.“Such conduct is most disconcerting,” she wrote.“At best, it undercuts the credibility of any future testimony from these individuals, and wastes the resources of the court and the litigants. At worst, it is possible perjury,” Kelly added.Kelly concluded that immigration officials either willfully tried to obfuscate the circumstances of Gonzalez’s arrest and detention and the identities of the agents involved, or were unable to maintain proper records, use their equipment or comply with court orders.The Philadelphia Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office has faced other legal challenges. In July, it was sued over a surveillance policy imposing electronic ankle monitoring and intensive supervision requirements on noncitizens without individualized review.The American Civil Liberties Union also sued the office in June for abandoning a policy requiring officers to justify re-arrest and detention through an individualized determination of a material change in circumstances, such as an indication of new danger or flight risk.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads