What are the specific 96 court orders Judge Schiltz cited and the underlying facts of each case?
Executive summary
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz attached a four‑page appendix to a January 2026 order that, according to his writing and multiple news reports, lists 96 separate court orders ICE allegedly violated across 74 cases in the District of Minnesota; the appendix contains case names and numbers but no narrative facts about each entry [1] [2]. Reporting and the judge’s own order emphasize that the appendix is likely an undercount and that the document itself provides little beyond docket identifiers, limiting public ability to know the “underlying facts of each case” from the appendix alone [1] [3].
1. What Schiltz actually produced — a catalogue, not case files
Schiltz did not publish written factual summaries for 96 violations; instead he attached an appendix with case names and numbers identifying 74 cases and 96 separate instances of alleged noncompliance, and the order notes that the “extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated” [1] [2]. Multiple outlets describe the appendix as “detail‑free” or simply “a PDF with case names and numbers,” meaning the public record released with the order supplies identifiers but not the underlying factual narratives that explain how each order was violated [1] [4].
2. Concrete examples journalists could report from the appendix and filings
Although the appendix itself is terse, reporting and court papers point to particular examples: Schiltz’s order arose from a dispute over a detainee identified as Juan T.R. (reported as Juan Tobay Robles in some outlets) who the judge had ordered released or given a bond hearing, yet remained detained until the government ultimately released him and the scheduled contempt hearing was canceled [5] [2] [6]. Another example cited by the judge and reporters involved a Venezuelan man arrested in Minnesota and transferred to Texas despite a judge’s order to keep him in‑state, a violation noted in summaries of the appendix [1].
3. Underlying facts available in public reporting vs. missing details
News coverage and Schiltz’s order make clear that many of the cited violations arose amid Operation Metro Surge and emergency litigation challenging large‑scale arrests and detentions, but the appendix does not narrate the operative facts of each docket entry — e.g., when and how ICE transferred a detainee, the precise court order language, or the government’s contemporaneous justification — so anyone seeking a case‑by‑case factual account must retrieve the individual court dockets referenced by the case numbers [1] [7] [6].
4. Why the judge framed the appendix this way and the legal stakes
Schiltz described attaching the list as an “extraordinary step” meant to show the scale of noncompliance and to justify his demand that ICE leadership personally explain failures to follow court orders; he warned that continued noncompliance could prompt contempt proceedings and monetary sanctions for affected detainees [8] [7]. The judge and several outlets argued the list illustrated a pattern of executive branch resistance to judicial directives during an aggressive enforcement operation [9] [3].
5. Competing interpretations and reporting caveats
Critics and some commentators argue the appendix was a bluntly political gesture because it lacks descriptive context and therefore invites inference rather than proving misconduct in each instance; defenders counter that the list is a necessary catalogue to demonstrate systemic problems during a sudden enforcement surge and that full context exists in the referenced case dockets [4] [8]. Public reporting repeatedly notes the limits of the appendix for answering the user’s precise question: it identifies 96 orders and 74 cases but does not supply the underlying facts of each violation in a single, public narrative [1] [2].