DOJ Admits Breaking Many Court Orders in Immigration Cases in New Jersey

The DOJ admitted to breaking dozens of court orders, which is a serious issue for the justice system.
By Newsroom | Law, Government |

Recent reports indicate that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has acknowledged that authorities under its purview have violated dozens of judicial orders, particularly in recent immigration-related cases. These acknowledgments follow instances where government attorneys have been held in contempt of court and where evidence suggests instructions to disregard judicial mandates. The situation raises questions about adherence to legal processes and the potential impact on public trust in the justice system.

  • The Department of Justice has acknowledged that federal authorities have violated numerous court orders.

  • These violations appear to be concentrated in recent immigration cases.

  • Specific instances involve government attorneys being held in contempt of court.

  • Allegations suggest that some officials may have advised lawyers to ignore court directives.

Context of Judicial Order Violations

The reported violations and ensuing legal actions span several recent months. A key point of contention appears to be the government's handling of immigration cases, including deportations and the release of detainees.

  • June 24, 2025: A former DOJ lawyer alleged that Emil Bove, a DOJ official and judicial nominee, instructed government lawyers to disregard court orders related to deporting immigrants to El Salvador. This action was reportedly tied to the administration's use of a wartime statute for these deportations.

  • Recent Dates (Unspecified within the last day): A Minnesota federal judge, Judge Laura Provinzino, found a DOJ attorney, Matthew Isihara, in civil contempt for failing to release a detainee as ordered. This decision was preceded by a failure to comply with a court order and an affidavit from another judge.

  • Earlier Periods (Implied): Reports from April 17, 2025, discuss a former DOJ official discussing the Trump administration's responses to court orders, with critics citing attempts to evade judicial directives. Another report mentions a judge considering holding officials in contempt for violating orders concerning deportations.

Evidence of Non-Compliance

The evidence supporting these claims comes from court filings, judicial rulings, and whistleblower accounts.

  • Judicial Rulings:

  • In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino held Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Isihara in civil contempt for failing to release a detainee as ordered by the court. This was scheduled for a show-cause hearing.

  • Judge Farbiarz issued a related affidavit order, indicating a pattern of judicial disagreement.

  • Several federal judges have reportedly considered holding officials in contempt due to violations of court orders related to deportations.

  • Whistleblower Allegations:

  • A former DOJ lawyer stated that Emil Bove told government lawyers to ignore court orders concerning deportations to El Salvador.

  • Official Acknowledgment:

  • The DOJ has stated that authorities in New Jersey have violated dozens of judicial orders in recent immigration cases.

  • Analysis of Administrative Conduct:

  • Critics, as mentioned by NPR, point to the administration's attempts to evade court orders and requests for information, which one judge deemed as "gamesmanship."

Contempt Findings Against Government Attorneys

Instances of government attorneys facing contempt charges highlight the judicial system's response to alleged disregard for its orders.

Read More: Judge Warns Mark Zuckerberg Team Meta Glasses Recording In Los Angeles Court

  • Minnesota Case: Matthew Isihara, a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, was found in civil contempt by Judge Laura Provinzino. The basis for this finding was the DOJ's failure to release a detainee despite a direct court order.

  • Broader Pattern: The reports suggest this is not an isolated incident, with several federal judges reportedly considering contempt charges against officials for violating court orders related to deportations. This indicates a recurring tension between the DOJ's actions and judicial directives.

Allegations of Directives to Ignore Court Orders

Evidence has emerged suggesting that some DOJ officials may have actively advised lawyers to bypass judicial mandates.

  • Emil Bove's Role: A former DOJ lawyer has accused Emil Bove, a DOJ official and judicial nominee, of telling government lawyers to disregard court orders.

  • These instructions were reportedly related to the administration's controversial deportations of immigrants to El Salvador.

  • The deportations in question were carried out under a wartime statute, a legal basis that itself has faced scrutiny.

  • Judicial Skepticism: The alleged directive from Bove, coupled with other instances of non-compliance, fuels broader concerns about the administration's respect for judicial authority.

Impact on Public Trust and Legal System

The acknowledgement of widespread violations and instances of contempt can have significant ramifications.

  • Erosion of Trust: When government entities, including law enforcement and legal departments, are perceived as not adhering to court orders, it can undermine public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system.

  • Legal Confusion: As suggested in one analysis, such situations can lead to legal confusion among citizens, who may question their rights and the enforceability of legal protections.

  • Judicial Authority: Repeated violations can challenge the authority of the judiciary, potentially creating an environment where court decisions are seen as advisory rather than binding.

  • The implications extend to the very foundation of the legal system and the relationship between the executive and judicial branches.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The Department of Justice's acknowledgment of violating dozens of court orders, particularly in immigration cases, presents a serious issue. The evidence, including judicial findings of contempt against government attorneys and whistleblower allegations of directives to ignore court orders, paints a picture of significant challenges in adhering to judicial mandates.

  • Immediate Actions: The DOJ's acknowledgment implies an internal review of these practices.

  • Judicial Oversight: Continued scrutiny from federal judges, as evidenced by contempt findings and discussions of further actions, is likely to persist.

  • Legislative Scrutiny: Reports of state-level legislative efforts to protect immigrant communities and limit local law enforcement's cooperation with immigration agents suggest a broader societal and political response.

  • Transparency: Greater transparency regarding the DOJ's internal policies and practices concerning court orders will be crucial for rebuilding public trust.

Sources Used

(Note: The summary for Article 2 was promotional and did not contain specific factual information relevant to the investigation.)

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What did the Department of Justice (DOJ) admit to doing in New Jersey?
The DOJ admitted that its officers have broken dozens of court orders. These violations happened in recent immigration cases.
Q: What is an example of a court order being broken?
In Minnesota, a judge found a DOJ lawyer, Matthew Isihara, in civil contempt for not releasing a detainee as ordered. This shows a pattern of not following court rules.
Q: Are there claims that officials told lawyers to ignore court orders?
Yes, a former DOJ lawyer said an official named Emil Bove told government lawyers to ignore court orders. This was about deporting immigrants to El Salvador.
Q: Why is this important for the public?
When the government breaks court orders, it can make people lose trust in the justice system. It makes people question if the law is fair and if court decisions are followed.
Q: What happens next?
The DOJ's admission means they will likely look into these issues. Judges will continue to watch closely, and there may be more questions about how the DOJ follows court rules.