Again, The Noemites/Homan-istas Have Directly Disobeyed A Federal Court Order Of USDC Judge Cummings, In Chicago. Ugh.

The Noemites are again flirting with contempt -- and jail time -- here.

This time, in a similar federal proceeding in Colorado, the Noemites told a judge in open court that its brodacsts would apply nation-wide -- "so, not to worry about a separate order for Colorado."

Then, not barely three weeks later, the able USDC Judge Cummings in Chicago ordered a similar broadcast order, to the one entered already in California. To certify it had complied, the ICE lawyers said that -- despite two clear orders of his -- the Noemites sent it only to Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Kansas.

That was, at a minimum, a lie -- and a fraud, on the Colorado federal District Courts. So, Judge Cummings just today ordered new compliance proceedings -- and they will be held this week:

. . .[The goverenment's broadcast] is inconsistent with this Court’s orders both at the February 13 hearing and in the February 17 Order. Accordingly, the Court orders defendants to re-circulate the Broadcast Statement of Policy to all ICE agents nationwide by email and they shall advise the agents that the Broadcast remains in effect as the ICE policy governing warrantless arrests until further notification by DHS and ICE, period, full stop. Defendants are further ordered to certify their compliance with this directive in their February 27, 2026 certification. . . .

Other courts have recognized that the Broadcast Statement of Policy is a nationwide statement of ICE policy. See, e.g., Ramirez Ovando v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-03183-RBJ, 2025 WL 32923467, at *2–4 (D.Colo. Nov. 25, 2025) (discussing the origin of the Broadcast (“Broadcast I”), how it was prematurely rescinded by ICE (“Broadcast II”), and how it was reinstated by this Court’s October 7, 2025 Order (“Broadcast III”)); Id., at *15 (applying the requirements in “defendants’ own Broadcast statements”); Id. at *23 n.28 (“The standards for determining probable cause of flight risk for a warrantless arrest and documentation in a Form I-213 are substantially the same as those ICE has previously set out for itself in Broadcasts I and III.”).

Notably, in Ramirez Ovando, defendants themselves took the position that the Colorado district court need not enter an injunction governing warrantless arrests because a sufficient policy was “already in place” by virtue of the Broadcast. Id., at *14 (emphasis in original); Id., at *21 (“Finally, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of irreparable harm in light of Broadcast III, which was issued a week before the hearing, and already require[rs] ICE officers to comply with § 1357(a)(2).”) (cleaned up). If defendants believed that the Broadcast only applied to the ICE Chicago Area of Responsibility, this Court would like to believe that defendants never would have represented to the Colorado district court that the Broadcast was in effect in Colorado. . . .

All of this -- this whole damn ICE dumb show -- is simply. . . madness. Out.

नमस्ते