A court order said: don’t move him out of Minnesota. ICE moved him to Texas anyway. 

I’m not claiming some grand theory about “the system.” I’m claiming a narrower, testable mechanism: when enforcement isn’t wired into execution, a court order becomes after-the-fact paperwork.

Here’s the system:

Input → Judge issues an injunction (no transfer) 
Standard → “Do not move him outside the district/state”
Interpreter → Agency coordination + transport/logistics chain
Outcome → Transfer happens, then everyone scrambles to “fix” it later 

The record makes it plain:

“Respondents acknowledge they violated the January 20 Order” 

And the remedy shows the real-world cost: he’s released in El Paso, and the court awards compensatory sanctions for the airfare back. 

This doesn’t require bad intent. It's how systems behave when the constraint lives in one lane (legal) and the action lives in another (operations). 

Precedent:
If the government can acknowledge an injunction, violate it anyway, and the practical “fix” is reimbursement after the fact, then the operative rule becomes: execution first, compliance later.

What evidence would convince you this was truly a one-off, rather than a repeatable execution pattern?