I reported on the contempt hearing called by Minnesota federal judge Jeffrey Bryan in “For want of a shoelace.” Judge Bryan ordered United States Attorney Daniel Rosen to attend and answer to the Department of Lost and Found that Judge Bryan was running for ICE in some 28 cases. Judge Bryan’s order scheduling the contempt hearing is posted online here.
The absurdist playwright Eugene Ionesco had nothing on Judge Bryan. One of the 28 cases my friend Dan was held to account for involved a lost shoelace. The habeas petitioner was concerned that ICE might scrape it for his DNA if it found the shoelace and he might then be linked to crime scenes in which he had played a part.
Dan resolved the case that morning by agreeing that ICE would return the shoelace without further ado if it were to find it. The habeas petitioner could resume his life of crime without unnecessary anxiety regarding incriminating evidence. Justice was done in that case to the apparent satisfaction of Judge Bryan. The issue of https://www.powerlineblog.com/wp-admin/edit.phpcontempt remains alive in five of the 28 cases.
At the hearing Judge Bryan threated Dan with imprisonment for contempt. That was mystifying to me. Dan wasn’t a respondent in any of the habeas casers. He hasn’t violated any court order. What’s it all about? I left the hearing trying to figure it out.
Yesterday Dan filed a recusal motion in which he asks Judge Bryan to withdraw from the habeas case of Tong Xiong. I have filed Dan’s memorandum supporting the recusal motion at the bottom via Scribd.
The three habeas respondents in the Xiong case (and many other habeas cases) are also the named defendants in Minnesota v. Noem. The state’s case raises allegations that the federal government’s Operation Metro Surge was unlawful and unconstitutional. It further alleges widespread unlawful actions by federal law enforcement in the arrests and detention of individuals. The signatory of the Minnesota complaint on behalf of the state is Minnesota Solicitor General Liz Kramer — Judge Bryan’s wife.
In the Xiong habeas case, petitioner alleges that he was one of those unlawfully arrested and detained in Operation Metro Surge. Xiong’s case makes allegations specific to him, while Judge Bryan’s wife’s complaint alleges that the respondents in the Xiong case are responsible for the same and similar actions more generally. The recusal memorandum notes that Judge Bryan did not disclose his relationship to Solicitor General Kramer.
Dan argues that in light of Solicitor General Kramer’s role in advancing the state’s litigation position, which clearly aligns with the claims asserted by Xiong and the fact Respondents in these habeas cases reject the assertions that Solicitor General Kramer has made, the Judge Bryan must consider whether the public might reasonably question his impartiality.
As a matter of fact, I thought that Judge Bryan displayed his animus in the contempt hearing earlier this month. Although the Minnesota federal bench appears generally to share it, one might infer that Judge Bryan brings something special to the habeas cases. The question is now remitted to his good judgment, which itself might be questioned by his failure to disclose the grounds for raising the question on his own.
