Homeland Security Secretary Mullin declines to commit to following court orders
GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

Homeland Security Secretary Mullin declines to commit to following court orders

Jun 3, 2026Updated 7:33am ET

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined at a Senate hearing to explicitly commit that the Department of Homeland Security will follow federal court orders.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined at a Senate hearing to explicitly commit that the Department of Homeland Security will follow federal court orders.

Corroboration

LowMedHigh
POLITICOAdnLos Angeles TimesThe Washington Times

Confirmed by 4+ sources.

What This is

  • Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declined at a Senate hearing to explicitly commit that the Department of Homeland Security will follow federal court orders.
  • Mullin said he would not break the law but argued that courts can be politicized when pressed by senators about compliance.
  • Democratic senators said DHS has failed to comply with nearly 100 court orders this year, citing a judge’s finding about ICE.
  • Lawmakers said alleged noncompliance with court orders is central to the partisan dispute over DHS funding that contributed to a recent funding lapse.
  • Democrats also questioned Mullin about threats to withdraw Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions and about DHS spending decisions.
  • Senators pressed Mullin on detainee treatment at the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in Newark, and he denied abuses.
  • Mullin said New Jersey health inspectors found no health violations at Delaney Hall, disputing detainees’ allegations of spoiled food, delayed medical care, illness, and hunger strikes.
  • Mullin acknowledged inaccuracies in statements by his predecessor about two shootings and discussed DHS funding and immigration enforcement planning ahead of the World Cup.

Why This Matters

  • Whether the executive branch treats court orders as binding is a basic test of the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances.
  • If a major law-enforcement department does not reliably follow judges’ orders, people affected by detention and deportation may have rights in name but not in practice.
  • Uncertainty about compliance can intensify budget standoffs by turning routine funding into leverage over oversight and accountability.
  • Disputes about detention conditions and health inspections shape public trust in government custody standards and transparency.

Who else would want to know this?