Mullin declines to follow court orders

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin used a June 2 Senate hearing to draw a line the Trump administration has often implied but rarely stated so directly: he would not give lawmakers an unqualified commitment that the department will obey court orders that cut against its immigration agenda. Pressed by Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Mullin said DHS would not break the law, then declined to equate that with automatic compliance with judicial rulings. In the same political moment, President Donald Trump was citing a January Substack post by former fixer Michael Cohen to argue that earlier cases against him should be thrown out. The two episodes involved different institutions, but both turned on whether courts and prosecutors are being treated as binding authorities or as partisan actors. ### What exactly did Mullin say under oath? Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds DHS, asked Mullin whether he would commit to following court orders if a judge found the department was acting illegally. Reuters reported that Mullin did not give a direct yes and instead said DHS would not break the Constitution or the law. Mullin then said, “If we didn’t think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that,” according to Politico and other accounts of the exchange. He added that some judges use “their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law.” Murphy replied that those answers were not the same as promising to obey court rulings. (msn.com) He asked whether DHS would “pick and choose” which orders to follow, and Mullin told him not to put words in his mouth. ### Why was Murphy asking that question in the first place? Murphy tied his questioning to a January ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota, a Republican appointee, who said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated nearly 100 court orders. (politico.com) Accounts of the hearing said Murphy cited that finding as evidence that concerns about DHS compliance were not hypothetical. (yahoo.com) Politico reported Murphy told colleagues that the dispute over court compliance was central to the broader fight over DHS funding. He said it was difficult to fund an agency that lawmakers believed was violating the law. The June 2 hearing was Mullin’s first appearance on Capitol Hill since taking office about two months ago, and it came as senators reviewed the administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request for DHS. (yahoo.com) The session also included questions about immigration enforcement and threats to pull Customs and Border Protection officers from some airports in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. (politico.com) ### How does Trump’s Michael Cohen argument fit into this? Donald Trump separately seized on a January Substack post by Michael Cohen, who wrote that he felt “pressured and coerced” by prosecutors during past investigations, according to Mediaite. Trump used Cohen’s claim to argue that prosecutions against him should be dismissed and to renew his assertion that he is “an innocent man.” (usatoday.com) Mediaite said Trump’s posts framed the cases against him as products of political “lawfare,” a term he has repeatedly used to attack prosecutors and judges. Cohen’s remarks did not amount to a court filing or a judicial finding, but Trump presented them as support for undoing earlier cases. ### Are these two episodes formally connected? The June 2 hearing and Trump’s social media posts were separate events involving different legal forums. (mediaite.com) Reuters’ account focused on DHS, immigration enforcement and the Senate funding fight, while Mediaite’s report concerned Trump’s effort to discredit past prosecutions by invoking Cohen. What links them is the language used by administration figures and Trump himself. (mediaite.com) Mullin said some courts are politicized; Trump argued prosecutors and the cases against him were tainted. Those claims were made publicly on the same day that senators were debating how much authority and money DHS should receive. ### What happens next? Senate appropriators are continuing work on DHS funding legislation tied to the administration’s fiscal 2027 request, and Murphy has already signaled that court-compliance concerns will remain part of that debate. (msn.com) Reuters and AP both reported that Democrats are demanding restraints on immigration enforcement before backing funding. (politico.com) Trump’s separate effort to use Cohen’s January comments is now playing out in public argument rather than in a new court ruling. The next formal steps to watch are Senate action on DHS appropriations and any court filings, by Trump or prosecutors, that try to turn Cohen’s statements into a legal claim. (thehill.com) (msn.com)