A Biden-appointed federal judge in Denver is weighing whether to open contempt proceedings after Nathan Rasper, acting head of ICE’s Denver field office, testified that he authorized the re-arrest of detainees whom judges had ordered released. U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney questioned Rasper on Monday, demanding an explanation for how ICE could put people back in custody after a court had ordered their release while they pursue immigration cases.
The hearing was part of a week of hastily scheduled proceedings in Colorado. Several federal judges have summoned senior immigration supervisors to explain why ICE officials were not following, or apparently not reading, orders that spelled out limits on their conduct. That is a fairly creative interpretation of the phrase “court order,” although it did not seem to amuse Sweeney.
The federal government told a judge that ICE had re-arrested at least 18 people. Immigration attorneys said the number could be higher because many detainees represent themselves. Some were held longer than they should have been, while others were taken back into custody after release had been ordered. A revolving door is supposed to move people out, not send them straight back into detention.
ICE had re-arrested at least 18 people, the federal government informed a federal judge Monday morning in court. https://t.co/WwaUY7CVrk
— 9NEWS Denver (@9NEWS) November 10, 2026
Rasper said he instructed officers that people released through habeas corpus could be arrested again beginning October 27. He said he ordered them to stop the practice on November 4. He also testified that he believed some people had been detained without properly executed arrest warrants, and that those warrants could later be executed to support another arrest.
When Sweeney asked, “Are you understanding the court’s concern?” Rasper answered, “Yes,” and said he had been in the ICE position only a few weeks. He otherwise explained that he had been confused about the rules, even though federal courts in multiple jurisdictions had repeatedly spelled them out. Confusion may explain a mistake, but it is a thin answer when liberty and constitutional rights are on the line.
Sweeney then turned to two assistant U.S. attorneys sitting beside Rasper. “ICE is not in the position to monitor its own conduct in terms of its legality,” Sweeney said. “It is not something the court will tolerate. It’s a due process violation … it’s truly egregious in terms of a constitutional violation. I will be issuing an order that reflects that.”
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS ICE TO EXPLAIN RE-ARRESTS AFTER COURT-ORDERED RELEASES
WHAT HAPPENED
On November 4, U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney questioned ICE officials over a practice of releasing immigration detainees under court orders, then immediately taking them back into…
— Receipts Matter (@ReceiptsMatter) November 5, 2026
Rasper testified that he acted after hearing from colleagues in Minnesota that courts there allowed immediate re-arrests. He said he was unaware of an October 8 agreement between the federal court and the U.S. Attorney’s Office calling for automatic release when the government declines to defend a detention.
The ACLU of Colorado and immigration attorney and law professor Elizabeth Jordan identified at least 17 cases in which ICE held people after courts had ordered their release. They also described men being forced out of the GEO detention facility in Aurora on October 27 and immediately surrounded by ICE officers.
Sweeney rejected the premise that a brief release could satisfy a court order, saying, “Releasing somebody momentarily is not releasing somebody at all.” The judge ordered the government to produce a list of everyone released under habeas orders and subsequently re-arrested. She will issue a written order deciding whether to initiate contempt proceedings.
Courts can disagree with an agency’s choices, but an agency does not get to turn a release order into a temporary exit pass. If the government believes someone should remain detained, it has legal avenues to make that case. Releasing someone and then immediately taking them back looks less like compliance and more like an attempt to treat judicial oversight as an optional suggestion.
Source: Townhall
Leave a Comment