Two federal judges in Iowa have sharply criticized government officials for repeatedly violating the law in immigration cases, with one ICE enforcement officer held in contempt for “astonishing conduct” and willfully violating a court order. The rulings signal a potential shift in federal court enforcement against ICE practice violations in detention and transfer cases.
What changed
Two separate cases, each handled by a different federal judge, involve ICE officials who moved detainees out of Iowa jails while the individuals had pending immigration cases before the court.
In the first case, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to show cause as to why Pardeep Saini was not being illegally detained and ordered federal officials to refrain from moving Saini out of the Southern District of Iowa while his case was pending. Without notifying the court, ICE officials then transferred Saini from the Polk County Jail in Iowa to a detention facility in McCook, Nebraska.
ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Quintin Erdman later testified that while there was a general understanding that individuals would not be transferred out of a judicial district while their court case was pending, ICE officers didn’t place a hold on those detainees to prevent their removal and instead merely noted the pending case in the detainees’ file. Ebinger criticized ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for what she called their “unprecedented disregard for court orders and continued failure to follow the law,” and Ebinger ruled Erdman was in civil contempt and admonished him for his conduct in the case, warning him that any future violations could result in sanctions.
While Erdman told Ebinger that ICE has implemented a plan to prevent court-prohibited transfers in the future, the judge said she did not find that assertion convincing and noted that “ICE continues to struggle to follow the law and court orders.” Ebinger ordered Erdman to conduct a review of all Southern District of Iowa cases in which ICE detainees are challenging their detention and to then file a statement with the court attesting to the fact that all of those individuals remain in the district.
In the second case, the chief judge of the Southern District of Iowa referenced ICE’s “record of defying court orders,” and warned the federal government that “noncitizens are not bargaining chips to be shifted from district to district as litigation strategy.”
The judge in one of the cases took aim at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Iowa, saying “the court expects better” of assistant U.S. attorneys who should be working in the interests of justice.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners litigating detention and removal cases in the Southern District of Iowa, this ruling creates potential leverage:
- Contempt findings support arguments that ICE practices are systematic and willful, not isolated, making individual judicial relief more likely in future cases
- Judicial impatience is now on the record; judges expect ICE to comply with orders without requiring multiple filings and court interventions
- Statewide review orders mean ICE is now required to verify and certify that all detainees in the district remain within it—creating a floor for jurisdiction and a tool for detecting improper transfers
- U.S. Attorney criticism signals potential weakness in DOJ’s defense of ICE actions; the same office must defend civil contempt appeals
Practitioners should preserve evidence of any ICE transfer or jurisdictional violations during the pendency of client cases and be prepared to move for contempt sanctions, attorney fees, and injunctive relief if violations occur.
Way forward
- Audit your cases: If you represent an ICE detainee in the Southern District of Iowa, verify immediately that your client remains within the district and has not been transferred without notice. Document the date and method of confirmation.
- File protective orders: In any new detention case in this district, seek an explicit order requiring ICE to maintain jurisdiction and provide advance notice of any intended transfer.
- Reference these rulings: Cite the contempt finding and judicial criticism in motions for release, bond, or injunctive relief. Courts have now flagged ICE’s pattern of non-compliance.
- Preserve contempt claims: If ICE violates a court order in your case, move immediately for contempt sanctions and attorney fees under the precedent now established.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is not a law firm and cannot advise you on the application of these rulings to your specific case. Immigration law is complex and subject to frequent change. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to discuss how this decision may affect your individual circumstances. While we have made every effort to provide accurate information, we recommend you verify all details against the primary source linked above and the applicable court dockets. Policy and practice can change without notice.