A federal judge in Minnesota delivered a sharp rebuke to government officials, holding them in civil contempt for a blatant disregard of a direct court order. The case centers on Fernando Gutierrez Torres, a Mexican national, and a series of actions that defied the authority of the court.
Judge Eric Tostrud, appointed in 2018, discovered that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) moved Torres to Texas despite a clear prohibition against transferring him out of Minnesota. This transfer occurred without informing Torres’ attorney, a critical breach of legal protocol.
The judge had previously ordered Torres’ release, demanding it be completed “as soon as practicable, but not later than 48 hours.” This directive followed a successful habeas petition, granting Torres his freedom from custody.
A severe winter storm in Texas initially complicated matters, forcing the cancellation of Torres’ scheduled flight back to Minnesota. ICE determined rescheduling the flight would exceed the 48-hour release window.
In a controversial attempt to meet the deadline, ICE opted to release Torres immediately in El Paso, Texas, rather than adhere to the original order and return him to Minnesota. Crucially, his personal belongings were reportedly withheld during this rushed release.
Judge Tostrud firmly rejected the justification for this action, stating that the urgency of the deadline did not excuse violating the initial court order. The judge emphasized that ICE should not have transferred Torres to Texas in the first place.
As a consequence, the government was ordered to cover the cost of Torres’ flight back to Minnesota – nearly $570 – funds initially advanced by his attorney. This financial penalty underscores the seriousness of the court’s decision.
Government lawyers conceded that the transfer decision was made without consulting Torres’ counsel, acknowledging a failure to comply with the court’s expectations. They expressed “deep remorse” and offered a “sincere apology” for the situation.
The administration has been given until March 1st to request an evidentiary hearing, after which the judgment will become final. They also have the opportunity to identify the individual or entity responsible for the violation.
Details surrounding Torres’ initial arrest remain undisclosed, with the administration citing “alleged immigration-law violations.” The case highlights a critical tension between immigration enforcement and the protection of due process under the law.
