ICE violated 96 court orders in 1 month, in 1 state alone

At 3:23 this afternoon, sitting before the Senate Appropriations Committee for the first time since taking over as Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem's replacement was asked a simple question: Would he follow court orders? He refused to say yes. With that single exchange, the Department of Homeland Security found itself back in the headlines, because the man overseeing one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government would not commit to obeying the judiciary branch of our government. What happens when the people entrusted to enforce the law no longer believe they have to follow it?

Based on the events of 6-2-2026

The Breakdown:

• DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who replaced Kristi Noem in March after Trump fired her, refused four times to commit to following court orders
• Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut built the question carefully, reading from a ruling by Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of Minnesota
• Schiltz, who clerked for Antonin Scalia and was put on the bench by George W. Bush, wrote: "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence"
• Ninety-six court orders violated across seventy-four cases, in one state, in roughly a month
• Mullin's answer: "We will never break the Constitution and we're not going to break the law"
• Why that sounded like an answer but wasn't one. The courts decide whether the law is being broken, not the officials accused of violating it
• Mullin: "If we didn't think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that"
• "Not all judges are above the law, but sometimes they think they are"
• Murphy to the committee: members "should be really, really freaked out"
• "I think that's actually the end of our republic, if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation"
• The trick Mullin played: swapping in the words "the Constitution" and "the law" where "court order" belongs
• Alexander Hamilton warned about this more than two hundred years ago, calling the judiciary the weakest branch because it possesses "neither force nor will, but merely judgment"
• Courts depend on the executive branch to enforce their rulings. They have no army, no police forces
• Why this won't stop with DHS, and what happens when an election ends up before a court
• Why the most dangerous attacks on democratic institutions rarely come from chaos, but from people who know exactly what they are doing
• Why this is not really about Trump and Mullin, but about the people in Congress who are letting it happen
• Primary elections held tonight in California and five other states
• Real Americans standing in line and casting ballots, while one man in a hearing room said he might not honor a ruling he dislikes
• Votes counted. Results accepted, even by candidates who lost, even when the loser had the President's endorsement behind him

This commentary represents my personal opinions and analysis of matters of public concern, informed by publicly available information. Any references to individuals constitute opinion and commentary protected under the First Amendment.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

We focused on what really matters, fighting for the survival of our country. At 3.23 yesterday afternoon, sitting before the Senate Appropriations Committee for the first time since taking over as Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Gnome's replacement was asked a simple question. Would he follow court orders? And he refused to say yes. And with that single exchange, the Department of Homeland Security found itself back in the headlines because the man overseeing one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government would not commit to obeying the judiciary branch of our government. It was a chilling moment, one that points toward a question every American should be asking. What happens when the people entrusted to enforce the law no longer believe they have to follow it? Can our country survive such a moment? DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen wasn't supposed to be in this story. Until March, he was a Republican senator from Oklahoma. Then Donald Trump fired Christine Noam and put Mullen in her chair. And at his confirmation hearing, he told the Senate a softer version of himself. He promised to work across the aisle. He said he would bring confidence back to the agency that had lost it. For two months after that, he was relatively quiet. Yesterday we found out what the quiet was for. He was planning for this moment. The question came from Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and he built it carefully. He read out loud from a ruling by Chief Judge Patrick Schultz of Minnesota, who clerked for Justice Scalia and was put on the bench by George W. Bush. He said ICE has likely violated more court orders in January of 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. Murphy made sure no one in the room could file that away as partisan. He said that's not a Democrat-appointed judge. That is a Republican-appointed judge describing the scale of illegality. Then he asked the simplest version of the question there is. He said, We will never break the constitution and we're not going to break the law. That sounded like an answer, but it wasn't one. The entire structure of our government gives the court the power to decide whether the law is being broken, not the officials accused of violating it. So Murphy asked again, and this time Mullen revealed the real issue. If we didn't think the courts were politicized, then I probably would be able to answer that. That is what he said. And then he went on and said, but we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law. That was the moment right there. Because Murphy wasn't asking whether Mullen agreed with a court order. He was asking whether DHS would obey one four times. Four times he was given the opportunity to say yes. Four times he refused. At one point, he didn't even try to hide how he really feels, saying not all judges are above the law, but sometimes they think they are. Murphy told the entire committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, that they should be really, really freaked out. And he named the stakes without flinching. I think that's actually the end of our republic if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation. This is the trick Mullen is playing. He keeps swapping in the words the Constitution and the law where the words court order belong. He wants us to hear a man pledging fidelity to the founding document. But under our system, he does not get to be the one who decides whether he is obeying it. A court does. That is the whole purpose of an independent judiciary. And that's actually the whole reason for having different and equal branches of the government. So when he reserves the right to ignore the judges who make that determination while wrapping himself in the language of constitutional devotion, he is not promising to follow the law. He is claiming the authority to decide for himself whether the law applies to him at all. And the judge Murphy quoted, was not exaggerating. Schultz had attached a list. 96 court orders were violated across 74 cases in one state in roughly a month. Those were habeas cases, people detained and challenging whether their detention was even legal. The judge wrote that ICE has every right to challenge an order. But like any other party in our case, it has to follow that order unless and until it is overturned. And the danger of ignoring court orders isn't just in the orders themselves. A court rules that something DHS is doing is illegal and orders it stopped. DHS decides that order doesn't count. What happens then? The uncomfortable answer is not much. The courts can issue contemorders, they can impose fines, they can even order arrests, but courts do not have an army. They do not have police forces. They depend on the executive branch to enforce their rulings. Alexander Hamilton warned about this more than 200 years ago. He called the judiciary the weakest branch because it possesses neither force nor will, but merely judgment. The entire system depends on one assumption that government officials will obey court orders even when they don't like them. What Mullen told the Senate yesterday is that he may not. And this won't stop with DHS. This is just another test. What happens when an election ends up before a court and the ruling goes against the Trump regime? Do they ignore that too? Murphy made one more point that we need to talk about. If a Republican administration gets to ignore the court orders it decides are political, then so does the next Democratic one. You do not get to break the rule only when it serves you. Once it is broken, it stays broken for whoever comes next. And more importantly, it creates a system where the law means whatever the people in power say it means. Nobody wins in that system. That is the complete breakdown of our democratic norms. That is the breakdown of checks and balances. That is the breakdown of having different parts of a government that are supposed to oversee and regulate each other. This is more than just what one man said. This could be the beginning of something truly terrifying. And maybe the hardest thing to sit with is that none of this is a surprise. We expected this. Not Mullen by name, but this, exactly this. We have been saying for more than a year that the guardrails would be tested until one of them finally gave way. We are still in the testing phase, but the next phase comes after the tests stop and the consequences begin. And history has taught us that the most dangerous attacks on democratic institutions rarely come from chaos. They come from people who know exactly what they are doing. Hearing Mullen declare that he might not follow court orders did not shock me. I'm not shocked by Trump anymore either. I expect all of it. What I cannot get passed still, after all this time, are the people in Congress who are letting it happen. The Republicans who know exactly what this is and have decided that a seat at Trump's table is worth more than the country that gave them that seat in the first place. They think that they are buying safety, influence, access, power, whatever he has promised them. And maybe that is the part that still hurts the most. Not that men like Trump and Mullen would test the limits of our democracy. Authoritarians always do. It is that so many people who swore an oath to defend it have decided not to. They are watching the same events we are. They understand the same stakes, and they're choosing silence anyway. That is what I have never been able to understand. And I know so many of us feel the same way. Last night I sat and I watched the election results in California and in five other states, primaries that will help shape what this November even looks like. And while one man is in a hearing room and was telling the Senate that he might not honor a ruling he dislikes, real Americans all over this country were standing in line and casting ballots. Votes were counted, results came in and were accepted, even by candidates who lost, and even when the loser had the president's own endorsement behind him. That is the thing that they have not taken from us. Our democratic norms, at least to this extent, are still holding. Yesterday was not an explosion of good news. It was quieter than that. It was people still showing up, caring, and believing their voice counts for something. And maybe that is what stayed with me last night. The willingness to participate, to stay engaged, even when things feel uncertain, is exactly what we are going to need in November. And people are already showing us that they are ready to meet the moment. And that one reason, that one thing for right now is why I still have hope for America. And you should too. And remember, no matter how dark the days get, I will be here every single day. And together, we will always find hope for America. I'll see you tomorrow.