In this nearby post, Bill Glahn comments on the Star Tribune story reporting the Eighth Circuit’s decision in the Avila case The story is credited to two Star Tribune repoters.
The story reports: “In recent weeks, judges have raised the possibility of holding Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen in contempt over the government’s failures to immediately return many immigrants’ property upon release from custody when their habeas cases were granted.” I believe this is mostly an allusion to Judge Bryan’s order underlying the hearing I covered in “For want of a shoelace.”
The “respondents” to whom Judge Bryan refers in the order are the “respondents” in the case: “Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department ofHomeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigrationand Customs Enforcement.”
In paragraph 3 of the order, United States Attorney Dan Rosen and others are ordered to appear before Judge Bryan at the hearing. Rosen was not a “respondent” in the hearing. He had not been subject to any court order. He had not violated any court order. Unless he failed to appear at the hearing, Judge Bryan could not lawfully have held him in contempt. His appearance was his only obligation.
Dan appeared at the hearing as ordered. He was in compliance with the only order to which he was subject.
At the hearing Judge Bryan nevertheless threatened to send Dan to prison. Judge Bryan’s threat was strictly for the benefit of those of us covering the hearing — for the likes of the Star Tribune reporters whose byline adorns the current story. Indeed, but for the press and the attorneys, Judge Bryan had cleared the courtroom. His threat was itself deserving of contempt.
