Left: President Donald Trump speaks outside the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, April 13, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right: Chief U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley (U.S. District Court).
A top California federal judge hit a DOJ attorney with sanctions after concluding that the overwhelming number of ongoing challenges to the legality of Trump administration immigration detentions was no excuse for repeated "failures" to comply with court orders.
Chief U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley of the Eastern District of California announced that he fined DOJ attorney Jonathan Yu $250 for wasting the court's time and "undermin[ing] the orderly administration of justice" in the habeas corpus case of Eblis Alexander Yanez Tovar, comparable to a recent episode in Minnesota federal court.
In the four-page order, the judge recounted how he ordered Tovar's release from detention in Bakersfield on April 3 and ordered Yu to file a "notice certifying compliance" within three days. Instead, on April 7 — one day past the deadline for which there was no extension sought or granted — Nunley ordered Yu to explain "in writing" why he shouldn't be sanctioned.
"The Court noted this is not Respondents' counsel's first failure to follow this Court's orders," Nunley stated.
Court documents additionally said the petitioner was released without his passport and driver's license, detailing in an April 7 motion that "he had difficulty traveling back from Bakersfield to his home in Utah upon his release and he is likely to be rearrested by law enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security if traveling."
Once again, Nunley said, Yu was given a deadline of April 10 to provide a "status update," but that update did not come until three days later.
Yu's eventual pitch against sanctions apparently rang hollow despite representing that he's handled "over three hundred immigration habeas cases" in a three-month span, and that some matters are more pressing than others in a "triage" scenario.
Like judges in Minnesota, Nunley emphasized that it was the attorney's responsibility to comply regardless or seek an extension.
"The Court is not persuaded sanctions should not be issued. The Court issued a clear and unambiguous directive requiring Respondents' counsel to certify Petitioner's release from custody. Respondents' counsel failed to do so within the time required. Moreover, while the question of sanctions was pending before this Court, Respondents' counsel again failed to timely file a status update as ordered, in the same case," the order said. "The Court does not take such failures lightly. Compliance with court orders is not optional; it is a fundamental obligation of any attorney appearing before this Court. Respondents' counsel's conduct reflects a pattern of disregard for that obligation. Indeed, this is not an isolated incident. Respondents' counsel does not contend he could not comply with the Court's order but rather, that he had higher priorities."
"Thus, Respondents' counsel's noncompliance in this matter, and in others, demonstrates an unwillingness — not an inability — to adhere to basic procedural requirements," Nunley concluded. "While the Court recognizes that mistakes can occur, repeated violations of court orders cannot be excused as mere oversight. Such conduct wastes judicial resources, delays proceedings, and undermines the orderly administration of justice."
Law&Crime reached out to Yu for comment and with a question about whether an appeal would come next, a distinct possibility based on recent similar courtroom encounters.
The DOJ is separately supporting special assistant U.S. attorney Matthew Isihara at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, insisting a judge was wrong to hold him in civil contempt to force his compliance.
As Law&Crime reported previously, the lawyer with the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Army said he was sorry the issue fell "through the cracks" and that he did not file documents confirming the return of a released detainee's Minnesota driver's license and Mexican Consulate ID. Like Yu, Isihara explained he took on 130 cases in a month's time while detailed at an office roiled by resignations amid Operation Metro Surge, when tensions were at their highest in Minneapolis.
The DOJ responded on appeal by claiming that the judge "held" the lawyer's career "captive" and subjected him to potential "permanent professional consequences" in an "improper attempt to coerce the defendant federal agency into speedier compliance with an order against that agency." That matter remains pending.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments