Julie Le removed from DOJ detail after contempt remark in Minnesota immigration hearing

A government attorney named Julie Le was pulled from a temporary Justice Department assignment in Minnesota after a blunt courtroom exchange in which she told a federal judge “this job sucks” and asked to be held in contempt so she could sleep. The episode, which unfolded in St. Paul on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, has become a shorthand symbol for the strain inside the federal immigration system as judges demand faster compliance with release orders.

What happened in court

Le appeared in U.S. District Court in St. Paul before Judge Jerry Blackwell during a hearing focused on repeated missed deadlines connected to court-ordered releases. The proceeding centered on five detainees who the judge said should not have been arrested, and why federal agencies failed to meet timelines to free them.

During questioning, Le expressed frustration with the pace of compliance and described the situation in unusually candid terms. In the same exchange, she told the judge she wished he would hold her in contempt so she could get “24 hours” of sleep. The remark landed sharply because it came during a hearing about court orders—an area where judges expect strict adherence and clear accountability.

Who Julie Le is and why she was in Minnesota

Le is a lawyer who had been working with immigration enforcement and was temporarily assigned to support the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota as a surge of immigration-related litigation hit the federal courts. The work included responding to habeas corpus petitions and other emergency filings seeking release from detention.

Court records tied to the Minnesota litigation show Le was assigned at least 88 matters in less than a month. In court, she described a workload that escalated quickly, limited support, and difficulty getting timely answers from overloaded agency channels—factors that shaped her comments when the judge demanded explanations for missed deadlines.

DOJ detail ends after viral moment

By Wednesday, February 4, 2026, Le’s detail to the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office had been ended, and she was no longer handling those cases. Public accounts of the personnel move have consistently described it as the end of a temporary assignment rather than a broader termination from government service.

The shift does not resolve the underlying issue raised in court: why agencies did not meet court-ordered timelines. It does, however, remove the most visible figure from the immediate spotlight, after the exchange drew widespread attention beyond legal circles.

Why the judge was pressing for answers

Judge Blackwell’s focus in the hearing was compliance. In federal court, orders to release detainees are not advisory, and repeated delays can trigger sanctions, including contempt proceedings, against responsible officials.

The hearing reflects a broader pattern in fast-moving detention litigation: judges want a clear chain of responsibility, a reliable process for executing release orders, and documentation that deadlines are being met. When those pieces break down, courts often summon agency and government lawyers to explain who missed what, and why.

What happens next in the cases

The detainee cases that prompted the hearing continue to move through the court system, and the pressure on federal agencies to meet deadlines remains. For the government, the practical questions are operational:

• How are release orders transmitted, tracked, and confirmed?

• Who has authority to execute releases quickly when courts set tight timelines?

• What staffing and training is in place for sudden surges in emergency petitions?

If delays persist, judges can escalate oversight through additional hearings, more detailed reporting requirements, or sanctions targeted at the points of failure.

What the episode signals about system strain

Le’s comments resonated because they were unusually direct for a courtroom setting, but they also highlighted a familiar tension: a court insisting on prompt compliance versus agencies managing capacity, communication bottlenecks, and shifting priorities.

The coming weeks will likely show whether this moment was an isolated flare-up or an early warning of deeper staffing and process problems in the Minnesota immigration docket. The answer will depend less on viral clips and more on measurable changes: fewer missed deadlines, clearer documentation, and faster execution of court orders.

Sources consulted: Bloomberg Law, The Guardian, The Independent, ABA Journal