Babies with Batteries
And no explanations
Good Morning:
In case what’s missing from your life is pictures of Ukrainian babies hanging out with large Ecoflow batteries.
Wednesday on #DogShirtTV, a bit of a grab-bag show. The estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I took questions on evangelical theology, Special Military Operations, vyshyvankas, and much else:
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I talked about Trump administration policies that outrage us, including FBI purges, mistreatment of refugees, and attacks on Malawi, of all places:
The Situation
(with the estimable Katherine Pompilio)
The Situation on Tuesday reflected on the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine.
Today, let’s hear from a few federal district court judges (and one associate deputy attorney general) on what they have had to say about the conduct of the United States federal government over the past several weeks. The judges quoted here were appointed by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Their jurisdictions range from the District of Minnesota to the District of New Jersey to the Middle District of Florida Orlando Division and beyond:
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 6, 2026: “On December 24, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner Hakan K.s release from custody by December 25, 2025, and ordered that within seven days of the December 24, 2025 order, counsel for Respondents must provide a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 affirming that Petitioner was released from custody as ordered. More than seven days has passed, and no such declaration has been filed.” Hakan K. v. Noem, et al., (25-CV-4722).
U.S. District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 9, 2026: “Respondents have confirmed that Petitioner Lida E.G.Q. was transferred out of this District against the Court’s January 9, 2026 Order prohibiting such a transfer…. Respondents’ counsel must explain the failure to comply with the Court’s order and show cause for why further remedial action, including sanctions, should not be imposed.” Lide E.G.Q. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, et al., (26-CV-138).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 13, 2026: “Respondents shall immediately file the letter previously ordered, confirming Petitioner’s current detention location and custodial status. On or before 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, Respondents shall file a written memorandum, not to exceed five (5) pages, explaining the failure to comply with this Courts [sic] order and showing cause why further remedial action, including sanctions, should not be imposed.” Estefany J.S. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (26-CV-216).
U.S. District Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 14, 2026: “Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered respondents to file an answer to Juan’s petition no later than January 12. Respondents failed to respond by that date and have filed no response since. The Court will therefore grant Juan’s petition to the extent of ordering that respondents provide him with a bond hearing under § 1226 and enjoining respondents from applying the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2).” Juan T.R. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-0107).
U.S. District Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 15, 2026: “In the Court’s January 9, 2026 show-cause order, which was filed at 2:23 p.m., the Court ordered the Government to provide Botir B. and this Court with 72-hour notice of any intention to move Botir B. outside of the District of Minnesota. The Government admits, however, that Botir B. was transferred to a detention facility in Texas on January 9, 2026. The Government does not disclose the time at which Botir B. was moved outside of this District, but if Botir B.’s transfer occurred after 2:23 p.m. on January 9, the Government would have violated this Court’s show-cause order. The Government represents that ICE was unaware of the Court’s show-cause order at the time Botir B. was transferred to Texas. Id. That is beside the point: a judicial order generally becomes effective ‘when filed and docketed.’....[T]he Court reminds the Government that by speedily sweeping up and removing noncitizens from Minnesota, the Government runs the risk of violating federal court orders restraining the transfer of those noncitizens outside of this District. Those actions have consequences.” Botir B. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-130).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 19, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioners release within 48 hours. Respondents have not done so. Respondents must comply with the Courts order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Courts order.” Santiago A.C.P. v. Todd Lyons, et al., (26-CV-164).
Judge Blackwell, Jan.19, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioners release within 48 hours. Respondents have not done so. Respondents must comply with the Courts order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Courts order.” Oscar O.T. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (26-CV-167).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 19, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioners release within 48 hours. (Doc. No. 6.) Respondents have not done so. Petitioners counsel has filed a letter indicating that Petitioner remains in Texas. Respondents must comply with the Courts order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 3:00 p.m. on January 19, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Courts order.” Jose L.C.C. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (26-CV-244).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 20, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioner’s release within 48 hours. Respondents have not done so. Respondents must comply with the Court’s order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s order.” Estefany J.S. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (26-CV-216).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 20, 2026: “On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents either to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by January 16, 2026, or to release him, and to provide the Court with a status update by January 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. CT. No status update has been filed. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to file the status update by 4:30 p.m. CT today and to provide a basis for their delay.” Jhony A. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-146).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 20, 2026: “On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to either provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by January 16, 2026 or release him, and to provide the Court with a status update by January 20, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. CT. No status update has been filed. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to file the status update by 4:30 p.m. CT today and provide a basis for their delay.” Pascual G. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-161).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 20, 2026: “On January 15, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to either provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by January 16, 2026 or release him, and to provide the Court with a status update by January 20, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. CT. 5 No status update has been filed.” Martin R. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-168).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 20, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioner’s release within 48 hours. Respondents have not done so. Respondents must comply with the Court’s order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s order.” Martha S.S. v. Kristi Noem, et al., (26-CV-231).
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 20, 2026: “Starting today, Respondents shall update the Court daily, no later than 5:00 pm, on the status of transporting Petitioner back to Minnesota. The Court ordered Respondents to return Petitioner to Minnesota no later than 5:26 p.m. CST on January 18, 2026. Respondents have far exceeded that deadline.” Liban G. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-301).
U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 23, 2026: “The Respondents have failed to transport the Petitioner to Minnesota in advance of his previously ordered bond hearing. The Court therefore finds Respondents to be in violation of the Court’s order dated January 15, 2026. The Court hereby orders Respondents to transport Petitioner to Minnesota by no later than January 24, 2026, and to release him from custody immediately upon his return to Minnesota. The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the status of Petitioners release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 2026.” Francisco E.O. v. Olson, et al., (26-CV-080).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 23, 2026: “After receipt of Petitioner’s counsel’s letter claiming Petitioner had been transferred out of the District of Minnesota in violation of this Court’s order, and disclaiming any knowledge of a bond hearing as well as asserting he had no opportunity to provide counsel prior to or during the bond hearing, this Court ordered Respondents to inform the Court as the date and time that Petitioner had been transferred out of the District and to provide additional information concerning the outcome of the bond hearing. Further, the Court ordered Respondents to do so no later than 4:00 p.m. January 23, 2026, and admonished Respondents that failure to do so would result in release. Respondents did not comply with this order. Accordingly, the Court orders the immediate release of Petitioner in Minnesota.” Francisco M. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-369).
U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 24, 2026: “On January 24, 2026, at 11:10 a.m., I entered an order directing Respondents to ‘file a status report in this action by no later than 1:00 p.m. on January 24, 2026, identifying Luis’s present location, the reasons for his continued detention, and the schedule for his release.’ That Order further stated that ‘[a]bsent Respondents’ assurance that Luis will be released by 3:00 p.m. on January 24, 2026, an Order to Show Cause will issue, scheduling a hearing at which Respondents’ counsel and the official(s) responsible for Luis’s continued detention will be ordered to attend.’ As of this writing, Respondents have not responded to this Order.” Luis S. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-454).
U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of the Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, Jan. 26, 2026: “If the Government is going to argue for expanding the interpretation of a law or maintain a widely rejected position to preserve its appellate rights, it may do so. But its lawyers must make those arguments in a way that comports with their professional obligations, as lawyers have done since time immemorial: Cite the contrary binding authority and argue why it’s wrong. Don’t hide the ball. Don’t ignore the overwhelming weight of persuasive authority as if it won’t be found. And don’t send a sacrificial lamb to stand before this Court with a fistful of cases that don’t apply and no cogent argument for why they should. Members of this Bar have a duty of candor to the Court. The Government’s response does not meet that standard. So U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe, Esq., and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joy Warner, Esq., must show cause why they should not be sanctioned.” Gimenez Rivero v. Mina, et al., (6:26-cv-66).
Judge Provinzino, Jan. 26, 2026: “No later than 3:00 p.m. CST today, the Government is ordered to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide confirmation of Petitioner’s release as ordered by the Court’s 10 Order Granting Habeas Petition.” Bashir Ali K. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-276).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 26, 2026: “On January 22, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner in Minnesota no later than January 24, 2026, and to provide the Court with a status update by January 26, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. CT affirming compliance with the Court’s order. No status update has been filed. Respondents are hereby ORDERED to file the status update by 4:30 p.m. CT today and provide a basis for their delay.” Ihor D. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-351).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 26, 2026: “Respondents must SHOW CAUSE, on or before Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., why Respondents should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders by committing the following actions: (1) failing to provide information to the Court about the location of Petitioner’s release; (2) failure to return Petitioner’s driver’s license and $114 in cash in their possession, custody, or control; and (3) failure to follow the Court’s release order, which did not include conditions. . . . The Court reserves consideration of any appropriate sanctions against the attorneys of record and the parties responsible for violating any of the Court’s orders.” Sandra C. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-283).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 26, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody in Minnesota and to confirm the time, date, and location of Petitioner’s release within 48 hours. Respondents have not done so. Respondents must comply with the Court’s Order immediately, and must file a letter no later than 4:00 p.m. on January 27, 2026, showing cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Courts Order.” Ronnie C. v. Pamela Bondi, et al., (26-CV-423).
Judge Provinzino, Jan. 26, 2026: “No later than 3:00 p.m. CST today, the Government is ordered to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide confirmation of Petitioner’s release as ordered by the Court’s Order Granting Habeas Petition.” Rendon Chavez v. Bondi, (26-CV-436).
U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 26, 2026: “Counsel for Respondents should be prepared to advise the Court about (1) the current whereabouts of the Petitioner; (2) the efforts that have been made by counsel and Respondents since the Court ordered his release on January 23, 2026 to effectuate his release; (3) when he was transferred to Texas; (4) why he was not returned to Minnesota pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause; and (5) when he will be released.” Diaz Toscano v. Bondi, (26–CV-448).
Judge Provinzino, Jan. 27, 2026: “Respondents state that as of Monday, January 26, 2026, they are unable to confirm Petitioner’s return to Minnesota or release from custody as ordered by the Court on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, in the Order Granting Habeas Petition. Respondents request until 3:00 p.m. today to provide an additional update to the Court on this matter. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to provide an update to the Court by no later than 3:00 p.m. today, January 27, 2026, which must include: (1) Petitioner’s current location; (2) an explanation of Respondents’ efforts to secure Petitioner’s immediate return to Minnesota and release from custody and why Respondents have failed to comply with the Court’s order to date; and (3) a date certain by which Respondents will secure Petitioner’s return to Minnesota and release from custody.” Joaquin Q. L. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-233).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 27, 2026: “On January 22, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner and to provide the Court with a letter affirming that Petitioner was released from custody in accordance with this Order by January 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. No letter has been filed.” Abdirahman S. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-440).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 27, 2026: “Respondents did not comply with this Court’s Order requiring them to provide the Court with a status update by January 26, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Court then ordered Respondents to file the status update by January 26, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. Again, Respondents did not comply.” Jose A. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-480).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 27. 2026: “On January 23, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner and to provide the Court with a letter affirming that Petitioner was released from custody in accordance with this Order by January 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. No letter has been filed.” Maria P. v. Brott, et al., (26-CV-504).
Judge Provinzino, Jan. 28, 2026: “No later than 12:00 p.m. CST tomorrow (January 29, 2026), the Government is ordered to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to provide confirmation of Petitioner’s return to the District of Minnesota as ordered by the Court’s 8 Order Granting Habeas Petition.” Josue David P. A. v. Bondi, et al. (26-CV-396).
U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 28, 2026: “The Court ordered that by January 25, 2026, Respondents file notice on the docket confirming Petitioner’s release within Minnesota. Respondents have not done so.” Hector T.G. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-449).
U.S. District Judge David S. Doty of the District of Minnesota, Jan. 28, 2026: “The issue of Jose’s location raises another issue. In its order to show cause dated January 25, 2026, the court ordered respondents to immediately return Jose to Minnesota. By all accounts, they have failed to do so.” Jose V. v. Easterwood, et al., (26-CV-597).
Judge Brasel, Jan. 29, 2026: “The Court ordered Respondents to file notice on the docket by January 25, 2026 confirming Petitioner’s release within Minnesota. Respondents have not done so. The Court orders that Respondents update the Court immediately.” Evelin M.A. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-156).
Judge Blackwell, Jan. 29, 2026: “Respondents were ordered to file a notice confirming the date, time, and location of Petitioner’s release after being returned to Minnesota. Respondents indicated on January 26, 2026 that Petitioner was scheduled for a return flight to Minnesota on January 27, 2026. No further updates have been filed.” Adriana M.Y.M. v. David Easterwood, et al., (26-CV-213).
Judge Bryan, Jan. 30, 2026: “Respondents did not comply with this Court’s Order requiring them to provide the Court with a status update by January 29, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Court then ordered Respondents to file the status update by January 29, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. Again, Respondents did not comply.” Isidro L. v. Lyons, et al., (26-CV-537).
U.S. Visiting District Judge Stephen R. Bough of the Western District of Missouri, Feb. 2, 2026: “Before the Court is a Notice of Violation of Court Order and Request for Immediate Release. Upon review, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from detention and transport him to the Whipple Building at Ft. Snelling with all of his items and belongings, including his phone, identification, documents, and money; and (2) Respondents shall show cause, on or before February 5, 2026, why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s January 29, 2026, Order.” Marco Q. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-663).
U.S. District Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the Eastern District of New York, Feb. 4, 2026: “In the course of proceedings to resolve the merits of the Petition, Respondents violated two clear and unambiguous orders of this Court—a December 4, 2025 Order to Show Cause and a December 8, 2025 Order to Produce Mr. Minarcaja Concha for a December 12, 2025 hearing before this Court—by putting Mr. Minarcaja Concha on a flight from New Jersey to Texas and transporting him to New Mexico for detention. The day before the hearing, however, Respondents submitted to the Court a declaration from an ICE official, who made the false statement that Mr. Minarcaja Concha was located in New Jersey and would be brought in person to the December 12, 2025 hearing in compliance with this Court’s Orders.” Concha v. Lyons, (25-CV-6695).
U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the District of New Jersey, Feb. 5, 2026: “The Respondents have violated a judicial order. In connection with the violation, the Petitioner has sought a remedy. To evaluate the remedy that might be appropriate here, the Court will require further information. Two affidavits shall be filed by the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office. Each affidavit shall be based on a sufficient investigation, personally undertaken by the Chief and described in the affidavits. The first affidavit shall be filed on or before February 9 at 5:00pm. It shall indicate in detail what happened in this case --- including precise information as to how and why the order came to be violated. The second affidavit shall be filed on or before February 10 at 5:00pm. It shall enumerate each instance in which the Respondents or people acting on their behalf violated an order issued by a judge of this district between December 5, 2025 and the present. In addition, the Respondents shall file a letter on or before February 11 at 9:00am. As to any filing on the docket that remains sealed as of that time and date, the letter shall explain why sealing meets the governing legal standards.” Kumar v. Soto, (26-CV-777).
Judge Provinzino, Feb. 6, 2026: “Respondents must be prepared to: (1) explain the legal basis for the conditions Respondents imposed on Petitioner following his release from custody; (2) explain the legal basis for Respondents’ retention of Petitioner’s property following his release from custody; (3) explain their failure to timely file a status report in compliance with the Court’s Order Granting Habeas Petition; and (4) show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating this Court’s orders.” Guaman Alvarez v. Bondi, (26-CV-941).
Declaration of Associate Deputy Attorney General Jordan Fox, Feb. 13, 2026: “Our Office found the following violations of Court orders between December 5, 2025, to February 12, 2026. Our Office identified six missed answer deadlines out of 547 matters. The Office identified 12 missed bond hearing deadlines out of 547 matters. The Office identified 17 post-injunction transfers out of 547 matters. The Office identified one post-injunction removal out of 547 cases. The Office identified three late releases from custody out of 547 cases. The Office identified three instances in which ICE imposed alternatives to detention (“ATD”) post-release without a court order authorizing ATD out of 547 cases. The Office identified 10 instances in 547 cases in which a judge deemed Respondents’ evidentiary production incomplete. The Office has identified four miscellaneous instances of possible noncompliance. The Office identified sixteen missed status update deadlines out of 547 cases.The Office identified three instances where Respondents did not comply with a deadline because the Office was added late to the docket and lacked actual notice of a deadline.” Kumar v. Soto, (26-CV-777).
Judge Provinzino, Feb. 18, 2026: “For the reasons stated on the record, SAUSA Matthew Isihara is found in civil contempt of court. Beginning 2/20/2026, SAUSA Isihara is ordered to pay $500 for each day Petitioner is not in possession of his identification documents. Payment shall be made to the Clerk of Court for this District. The Government shall file a certification of compliance on the docket once Petitioner has received his identification documents. For avoidance of doubt, the coercive fine will continue until the certification of compliance is filed on the docket.” Soto Jimenez v. Bondi, (26-CV-957).
Judge Bryan, Feb. 20, 2026: “Respondents have failed to establish clearly that Petitioner was released without conditions, thereby violating the Court’s Order(s) requiring release without conditions. On or before February 25, at 11:00 a.m. CT., Respondents are ORDERED to file a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by an individual with personal knowledge confirming that Petitioner was released without conditions and attaching documentation of that fact….To address any future noncompliance with this Order, the Court will consider imposition of coercive monetary penalties and any other measures within the Court’s authority.” Abdiqadir A. v. Bondi, et al., (26-CV-272).
U.S. District Judge Christine P. O’Hearn of the District of New Jersey, Feb. 20, 2026: “[T]he presumption of regularity and integrity previously and routinely afforded to the Executive branch and the United States Attorney’s Office has been undeniably eroded in this jurisdiction and across the country, and this Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from Respondents unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge. Indeed, recent proceedings in this District included an instance of a district court judge ordering the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey to file an affidavit enumerating ‘each instance in which the Respondents or people acting on their behalf violated an order issued by a judge of this district between December 5, 2025 and the present.’ In response to that order, Jordan Fox, the Chief of Staff to the United States Deputy Attorney General, filed a declaration identifying at least 56 instances in which the lawful orders of judges in this District were violated . . . between December 5, 2025 and February 12, 2026. . . . [T]his Court has good reason to suspect that number is underreported. For example, the Fox Declaration tallied ‘incomplete production’ violations for instances where ‘Respondents were unable to comply with the court’s order directing Respondents, inter alia, to include a certification attesting to the completeness of all immigration documents produced . . . .’ Yet this Court has included a similar certification requirement in nearly all its recent orders for an expedited response to habeas corpus petitions, and in nearly every instance the Respondents have admitted ‘that they have not satisfied the Court’s Order in full, including by failing to provide a certification for this response.’ . . . The Court has identified at least three additional cases—Gadea Leon, Alves Sarmento, and Salto-Salto, cited above—that would fall within the Fox Declaration’s time parameters and meet its definition of incomplete productions, yet are not included on the list of incomplete production violations. This only furthers the Court’s concerns as to Respondents’ representations to this Court in this case.” Singh v. Tsoukaris, (26-CV-1531).
Judge Tostrud, Feb. 23, 2026: “Fernando is entitled to compensatory sanctions for Respondents’ civil contempt of the January 20 Order. The Order enjoined Respondents from moving Fernando from the District of Minnesota during the pendency of his Petition. Respondents admit they violated the January 20 Order by transferring Fernando to El Paso, despite knowledge that his movement outside of this District was enjoined.” Fernando T. v. Noem, et al., (26-CV-445).
Judge Bryan, Feb. 26, 2026: “In light of Respondents’ numerous unlawful violations of court orders in these and other recent habeas cases, on February 20, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents ‘to immediately return all property in their possession, custody, or control to Petitioner’s counsel’ and to file declarations ‘by an individual with personal knowledge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 confirming that all property of Petitioner was returned to Petitioner and attaching documentation of that fact.’ The Court notified Respondents that if they did not comply by 11:00 a.m. on February 25, 2026, they would face contempt proceedings. As of the date of this Order, Respondents have not complied. The Court cannot ignore Respondents’ unlawful conduct. A combined contempt hearing for the above-captioned cases is set for Tuesday, March 3, 2026.” Saul N. v. Lyons, et al; Abdirahman S. v. Noem, et al; Maria P. v. Sheriff Joel Brott, et al; Jose P. v. Noem, et al; Daniel D. v. David Easterwood, et al; Yussuf M. v. Trump, et al; Francisco Z. v. Bondi, et al; Julio C. v. Bondi, et al; Luis P. v. Bondi, et al; Emilio P. v. Bondi, et al; Luis A. v. Easterwood, et al; Edison Q. v. Bondi, et al; Hector C. v. Noem, et al; George A. v. Easterwood, et al; Amin Y. v. Noem, et al; David H. v. Bondi, et al; Hussein A. v. Bondi, et al; Carmen S. v. Bondi, et al; Abdi G. v. Noem, et al; Alfonso P. v. Noem, et al; Jor Y. v. Noem, et al; Felipe C. v. Bondi, et al; Choerum C. v. Bondi, et al; Alex H. v. Bondi, et al; Carlos F. v. Bondi, et al; Luis P. v. Bondi, et al; Jean V. v. Bondi, et al; and Segundo A. v. Bondi, et al; (0:26-CV-00114)
U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the District of New Jersey, Feb. 26, 2026: “Efforts by the Court in this District to protect detainees’ rights have been largely frustrated by the Government. Earlier this month, the U.S. Attorney’s Office conceded to violating 72 orders issued in immigration habeas cases in this District alone. That number by itself is objectively appalling, but at least one judge has indicated that it was underreported. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has couched these violations as unintentional. Sadly, the well-deserved credibility once attached to that distinguished Office now a presumption that ‘has been undeniably eroded.’ The government’s continued actions after being called to task can now only be deemed intentional. The undersigned will not stand idly by and allow this intentional misconduct to go on. It ends today.” Cartagena v. Soto, (26-CV-1455).
Or does it?
The Situation continues tomorrow.
Recently On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Marissa Wang
What the Defense Production Act Can and Can’t Do to Anthropic
Alan Z. Rozenshtein breaks down the ongoing Anthropic-Defense Department negotiations on the military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI). Rozenshtein argues that the complex legal questions raised by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent threat to invoke the Defense Production Act exemplifies why these policy and governance limits are better left for Congress.
But the deeper problem continues to be that this fight is happening because Congress hasn’t set substantive rules for military AI. If Congress had legislated guidelines on autonomous weapons and surveillance, Anthropic would likely be far more comfortable selling its systems to the military—and the DPA threat would have never arisen. The question of what values to embed in military AI is too important to be resolved by a Cold War-era production statute.
State of the Union 2026: National Security Excerpts
Omowunmi Odeja and Olivia Parker summarize President Trump’s key national security and foreign policy statements from his 2026 State of the Union address, including border security and immigration, oil diplomacy with Venezuela, the possibility of a strike on Iran, the U.S.’s relationship with NATO, the reinstatement of tariffs, and more.
President Trump opened the 2026 State of the Union by reporting that “[o]ur nation is back - bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever before.” He recalled that when he spoke in the chamber this time last year, he had inherited what he described as “a nation in crisis with… a wide open border, horrendous recruitment for military and police… and wars and chaos all over the world.” He contrasted those conditions with the present moment, asserting “with dignity and pride that we have achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before and a turnaround for the ages.”
Are Trump’s “Fallback” Tariffs Legal?
Peter E. Harrell explains why the Trump administration’s reliance on Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to reimpose tariffs in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources is a more legally sound approach than its previous use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but still has its limits. Harrell cautions that these statutory authorities are less flexible than President Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA and that the courts remain sensitive to claims of overbroad executive power.
The Trump administration’s tariff fallback options almost by definition rest on a sounder basis than Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. Unlike IEEPA, which does not contain the word “tariff” and which no previous president had used to impose duties, Trump’s fallback options are tariff statutes that clearly authorize tariffs in at least some circumstances. However, the fallback options all require fact-finding, procedural steps, and/or impose limits on the value of tariffs that can be imposed. As a result, the fallbacks are less flexible than IEEPA prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources.
The Paranoid Style in American Oversight, Part I
Michael Feinberg criticizes Sen. Chuck Grassley’s account of the FBI’s ARCTIC FROST investigation into the 2020 presidential race false electors scheme, arguing that misleading allegations of partisan bias and conspiracy distort routine bureaucratic processes and omit key evidence from the narrative. Feinberg cautions that this paranoia in oversight damages the integrity of federal law enforcement.
Although Grassley has publicly posted emails, draft case openings, interview write-ups, and other pages pulled from the ARCTIC FROST file and the bowels of the FBI’s information technology systems, what results is less a documentary record than a collection of random exhibits seemingly designed to impugn the integrity of individual FBI employees. The piecemeal and nonchronological manner in which many of these documents have been released, and the lack of necessary context, distorts the narrative of how ARCTIC FROST began.
Fighting AI Cyberattacks Starts With Knowing They’re Happening
Janet Egan and Michelle Nie explain that recent cyberattacks using artificial intelligence (AI) should be taken as a warning that the U.S. lacks the tools to properly detect and understand AI-driven threats. Egan and Nie propose the creation of an AI Security Review Board to conduct independent investigations into AI-related cyber incidents to strengthen information sharing and protect American security.
Anthropic reported in November 2025 that Chinese threat actors used its Claude model to launch widespread cyberattacks on companies and government agencies. More specifically, Chinese actors jailbroke Anthropic’s coding tool, Claude Code, and used it to target 30 companies and government agencies around the world, marking the first known large-scale cyber campaign executed with minimal human involvement. This reported development is certainly unsettling, but far more alarming are future attacks that might go undetected. Anthropic caught this attack only because it happened on its platform where it has internal threat intelligence teams monitoring for abuse. The vast majority of AI-enabled attacks, however, won’t be so visible. To address this issue, artificial intelligence (AI) developers and policymakers must establish the mechanisms to better observe and understand this emerging threat landscape—before it’s too late.
Podcasts
On Wednesday’s Lawfare Daily, Ariane Tabatabai and Eric Brewer join me to discuss the possibility of a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future, what such an attack would look like, and the reasons why the U.S. may strike.
On Thursday’s Lawfare Daily, Stuart Casey-Maslen joins Loren Voss to discuss Geneva Academy’s international humanitarian law (IHL) report, the degradation of IHL over the past 20 years of global armed conflicts, the role of new technology, the future of threats to IHL compliance, and the possibility of new humanitarian treaty rules.
On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sits down with Tyler McBrien, Molly Roberts, and Paul Stephan to talk through the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs; the Mexican operation that killed one of the country’s most wanted cartel bosses, El Mencho; President Trump’s State of the Union address; and more.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the crocodile, seen here sneaking up on an innocent bird enthusiast:
In honor of today’s Beast, I have reread Kipling’s The Elephant’s Child, and so should you.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
 | A guest post by
|