On Wed., ICE Unilaterally (Against A Federal Court Order) Tried To Force Mr. Khalil To "Report And Check-In" To Its Offices, Periodically. That Will Be Squelched.

I suspect this is a case of using a pre-printed form -- without thinking.

But it may be worse that a mere error, too. Noem, at every turn -- is trying to set traps for the unwary. This is one of those. USDC Mag. Judge Hammer specifically said there would be no reporting condition, when he released Mr. Khalil last week. Here's the latest, by letter:

. . .The Court’s order setting bail conditions, which the District Court ordered would be exclusively operative in this matter, ECF 316, does not require Mr. Khalil to do any reporting or check in with ICE. In fact, at the June 20 release hearing, this Court explicitly rejected the Government’s request that Mr. Khalil be required to report to an ICE office following his release. See Tr. at 22 (June 20, 2025) (Judge Hammer: “I am not going to require Mr. Khalil to report to an ICE office. My understanding of Judge Farbiarz’s ruling today, as reflected in his order, is that he did not see in the record evidence, any basis, for that degree of scrutiny.”). And the Court’s written order makes no mention of an obligation to report to ICE. See ECF 317.

Nevertheless, upon his release from the LaSalle Detention Facility on June 20, 2025, ICE officials handed Mr. Khalil an “Order of Release on Recognizance,” which included a purported requirement that Mr. Khalil “report in (writing) (person) to [ICE] Duty officer . . . on 06/27/2025 10:00 as directed.” (A copy of this form is attached as Exhibit A.)

Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner’s counsel emailed counsel for the Respondents this morning to confirm Petitioner’s understanding that ICE could not, in light of the Court-ordered bail conditions, require Mr. Khalil to report to ICE, either in writing or in person. Further, Petitioner’s immigration counsel wrote to the ICE Duty Officer at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City (copying Respondents’ counsel) to explain that notwithstanding Petitioner’s objections to any reporting requirement, “as a one-time courtesy, we will comply with the request in the form provided to Mr. Khalil upon release in writing by sending this email.” We requested that Respondents’ counsel respond to us today (a request also made by leaving a voicemail message), confirming meaning of the Court’s order, in the event that any disputed interpretation would require seeking the Court’s attention. Respondents’ counsel responded by email at 5:24 pm that counsel was “still running this down. . . .”

More evidence of either pure incompetence -- or malignancy -- inside Noem's ICE. This will be toast, by next Tuesday. Baby girls here -- to make me grin this aft. . . . yup!

नमस्ते