ICYMI: Murphy to Mullin: Why Are You Refusing to Obey Court Orders?
Press (Murphy)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2026
CONTACT
Deni Kamper
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
MURPHY TO MULLIN: WHY ARE YOU REFUSING TO OBEY COURT ORDERS?
Watch Murphy’s Exchange Here
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, on Tuesday questioned Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin. Murphy confronted Mullin on his agency’s repeated violations of the law, resulting in more than 10,000 court rulings against DHS, and pressed Mullin on whether he’d commit to obey and implement court orders.
Murphy opened the hearing by pointing out Mullin’s failure to rein in the lawlessness at DHS: “At your confirmation hearing, you [promised] that you would get DHS out of the headlines. We took you at your word - but nothing has really gotten better…The reason why Democrats and Republicans were not able to find agreement on the underlying DHS appropriations bill is because never before in the history of our nation has a federal agency been run so far off the rails as the Department of Homeland Security. Every day this agency is breaking the law at scale and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. DHS does not implement the law any longer. It makes up the law.”
Murphy laid out the gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars by DHS: “This agency is spending money like stone drunk sailors. Let's just take the massive detention centers that you are building. In Social Circle, Georgia, DHS allegedly paid almost $129 million for a property previously valued at $29 million. In Socorro, Texas, A property previously valued at $11 million was sold to DHS for around $123 million - a 1,000% markup. Somebody is getting rich, fabulously rich, off of those deals… When President Trump came into office, ICE's budget was $10 billion. Today, with the obscene cash infusion this Republican Congress has given your agency, ICE’s effective annual budget is now 11 times that - $115 billion - and with these real estate deals and these contractor deals, at times the agency seems to be lighting this money on fire.”
Murphy highlighted how DHS has engaged in the type of pay-for-play corruption that has defined the Trump administration : “Geo Group was a small contractor in 2024, net income of about $31 million. But then Geo Group made enormous contributions to the president's political operations, and a revolving door started between Geo Group and DHS. Tom Homan worked for Geo Group, now works for DHS. David Venturella, Geo Group executive, is now poised to be the next head of ICE. And guess what happened in just a year, as its executives have gone to work for the agency, as the political contributions flow to the president, their revenue went from 31 million to…wait for it… $254 million. An 800% jump in just one year.”
Vowing not to support funding for an agency which systematically refuses to follow the law, Murphy outlined the reforms Democrats demand at DHS: “For Congress to approve of this budget, you must assure us that this Sherman's march of illegality ends. You must stop padding the pockets of immigration industry CEOs. You must rein in this out-of-control overspending. But, as I stated at the outset, the worry is the opposite is about to happen… Do not ask us to fund an agency that just makes up its own law.”
In a shocking admission, Secretary Mullin refused to commit to follow court orders that find ICE and CBP’s actions illegal:
Murphy: I mean, I think it's an easy thing to say. Will you, or will you not implement court orders?
Mullin: If we didn't think that…if we didn't think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law.
As Murphy implored his Senate colleagues to recognize the danger of an executive agency openly dismissing the authority of the courts, Secretary Mullin doubled down:
Murphy: I think if you're a Republican or Democrat on this committee, you should be really, really freaked out.
Mullin: We should be really concerned about the rulings that come out of the courts, and how often they get overturned.
Murphy: Our federal system falls apart if you’re telling me that you…
Mullin: They fall apart when you have a judge just make his political opinion from a bench. They're outside the law too. Not all judges are above the law, but sometimes they think they are…
Murphy made the ultimate consequences of the Secretary’s argument clear: “I agree that there is politics involved in judicial decisions. I do not think that gives an excuse to either a Democratic or Republican administration to ignore those court orders. I think that's actually the end of our republic if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation. That’s the difference between you and I.”
A transcript of Murphy’s opening remarks, initial exchange with Mullin, and closing exchange with Mullin is available below.
Murphy’s Opening Remarks
Thank you, Chair Britt. Thank you, Secretary Mullin, for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, I think you were crazy to have taken on this job, but at your confirmation hearing, you did promise that you would get DHS out of the headlines. We took you at your word, but nothing has really gotten better.
In fact, you spent the first two months of your tenure threatening to suspend international arrivals in states represented by Democrats. Not only would that throw our entire air travel system into chaos, it's completely illegal, which underscores the main issue of this hearing.
The reason why Democrats and Republicans were not able to find agreement on the underlying DHS appropriations bill is because never before in the history of our nation has a federal agency been run so far off the rails as the Department of Homeland Security. Every day this agency is breaking the law at scale and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. DHS does not implement the law any longer. It makes up the law.
Don't take my word for it. 10,000 times in the short 18 months this administration has run DHS, judges have overturned this agency's immigration decisions. Essentially every case that gets before a judge gets overturned. The agency has locked up American citizens, it has killed peaceful protesters just for getting in the way, it has applied a completely made-up set of immigration laws and deported hundreds of thousands of immigrants who broke no laws, were playing by the rules with legitimate claims to stay in the United States. A federal judge recently cited DHS for violating 96 different court orders in one single state. Not that this agency violated the law 96 different times in that state. No, on 96 occasions, the DHS was caught violating the law, was ordered to obey the law, and 96 times ignored the judge in one state. That is stunning, and it should be unacceptable to anyone on this committee who claims to care about the rule of law.
To make matters worse, this agency is spending money like stone drunk sailors. Let's just take the massive detention centers that you are building in Social Circle, Georgia, DHS allegedly paid almost $129 million for a property previously valued at $29 million. In Socorro, Texas, a property previously valued at $11 million was sold to DHS for around $123 million - a 1,000% markup. Somebody is getting rich, fabulously rich, off of those deals. Or take the company Geo Group. Geo Group was a small contractor in 2024, net income of about $31 million. But then Geo Group made enormous contributions to the president's political operations, and a revolving door started between Geo Group and DHS. Tom Homan worked for Geo Group, now works for DHS. David Venturella, Geo Group executive, is now poised to be the next head of ICE. And guess what happened in just a year, as its executives have gone to work for the agency, as the political contributions flow to the president? Their revenue went from $31 million to, wait for it, $254 million. An 800% jump in just one year.
When President Trump came into office, ICE's budget was $10 billion. Today, with the obscene cash infusion this Republican Congress has given your agency, ICE’s effective annual budget is now 11 times that - $115 billion - and with these real estate deals and these contractor deals, at times the agency seems to be lighting this money on fire.
But for this committee that should be unacceptable, because the money that is being wasted, it is earned by plumbers and security guards and teachers. They entrusted to us to spend it wisely. We swear an oath when we arrive here to assure that their money is not used to fund unconstitutional or illegal behavior every single day. This agency has violated the Constitution and the law. This cannot continue.
For Congress to approve of this budget, you must assure us that this Sherman's march of illegality ends. You must stop padding the pockets of immigration industry CEOs. You must rein in this out-of-control overspending.
But, as I stated at the outset, the worry is the opposite is about to happen. You are reportedly considering suspending international arrivals at airports in states represented by Democrats, you will say that is because you disagree with our state's immigration policies. And that is your right to disagree. But the law unquestionably does not give you the right to close international travel in states that don't have the same political leanings as your party.
And so I will say the same thing that I said to your predecessor in this forum: I know that you do not like our nation's immigration law. You believe that it lets in too many people. You don't like states' immigration laws that treat immigrants fairly. But the law is the law. Your disagreement with it does not give you the permission to just make up a different law. If you want more authority, if your agency wants more authority, if you want stricter authority, come to Congress and ask for it. Do not ask us to fund an agency that just makes up its own law.
Murphy’s Initial Exchange
Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
This is from a federal court decision regarding ICE's activities in Minnesota:
“ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has violated nearly 100 court orders. This list should give pause to anyone, no matter his or her political beliefs, who cares about the rule of law.
“ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
That's not a Democratic-appointed judge, that is a Republican-appointed judge describing the scale of illegality. I understand your MO and others in the administration's MO is to attack us personally or to claim that we're ‘inciting violence’ when we point out the widespread illegality, but this is a Republican-appointed judge who is saying the exact same thing that I am saying.
This is a really important discussion for us to have, because this is, whether you want to believe it or not, at the root of our disagreement is that it is very hard for us to figure out how to fund an agency that is violating the law.
Again, that's not me saying it. That's a Republican-appointed federal judge. Now, this widespread violation of court orders admittedly largely happened before you got on the job, and as a senator, you always struck me as somebody who cared about the rule of law, and so maybe the easiest question is this:
When DHS gets a court order telling them that something they are doing is either illegal and unconstitutional, prior to you taking office, the approach was to ignore that court order. That's what the judge is saying. 94 times you got a court order, you didn't implement it. Now that you are on the job, can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE is doing, something DHS is doing as illegal - unconstitutional - tells you to stop that - you will comply with the court order?
Mullin: Ranking Member Murphy, I will tell you that we will never break the Constitution, and we're not going to break the law, but we're going to enforce our nation's laws, and we're going to enforce the laws that you guys passed and that we implement. We will never go outside that, and if we do, we'll hold each other accountable for that.
Murphy: But that doesn't sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order. Obviously, the entire structure of the federal government gives the power to the federal courts to divine whether you are obeying the law or not. I mean, I think it's an easy thing to say. Will you, or will you not implement court orders?
Mullin: If we didn't think that…if we didn't think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law. And we can see that because we see how many times court orders…
Murphy: You’ll pick and choose which court orders you obey based upon whether you believe that appointee to have a political agenda?
Mullin: No, no. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Murphy: What are you saying then?
Mullin: What I'm saying is we'll enforce the law, and we're never going to break the Constitution.
Murphy: You just said that you will not follow every court order, because you know -
Mullin: Chris, or Senator, don't they'll start putting words in my mouth. That's not what I said. I said I will never break the Constitution. We're going to enforce the law.
Murphy: Will you implement court orders when they tell you to stop?
Mullin: You're making an assumption on court orders. I haven't -
Murphy: Will you or will you not?
Mullin: I am going to enforce the law, and I'll never break the Constitution.
Murphy: I think if you're a Republican or Democrat on this committee, you should be really, really freaked out.
Mullin: We should be really concerned about the rulings that come out of the courts, and how often they get overturned.
Murphy: Our federal system falls apart if you’re telling me that you-
Mullin: They fall apart when you have a judge just makes his political opinion from a bench. They're outside the law too. Not all judges are above the law, but sometimes they think they are. That's why we see lower courts get overturned by higher courts constantly.
Murphy’s Closing Exchange
Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record a lawsuit that was filed today by the New Jersey Department of Health, in which they are asking for access to Delaney Hall, because they have, in fact, been denied access to the medical unit, the sleeping areas, and the bathing and toileting areas, so it doesn't actually appear that the lack of violations is due to a finding that the conditions are sufficient, but that actually they are being denied access.
Does that change your assessment of whether you've done enough due diligence here, and maybe, more importantly - and I said you may want to look into this - but can you commit to us to making sure the department has access to that?
Mullin: Well, we give them access to the things we are contracted with them, and required to do: which is the health, the food, the preparation, the facilities.They don't always have unfettered access to the detention center, and if it's within their contract, we'll help them, but there is a difference between federal facilities, because they're not able to get to all federal facilities, and federal, and federal privatized systems too, where they are required by law to have access. We'll always allow them to have access. But because they want to politicize it, and the governor wants to politicize it by saying that they weren't allowed access. It's not true, and I would suggest they spend more time in their own prisons.
Murphy: Endless. Any time somebody disagrees with you, whether it's a member of this committee, whether it's a state public health agency, whether it's a federal court, they are politicizing the Department of–
Mullin: Sir, that's exactly what you're doing.
Murphy: Homeland Security. I've just been sort of chilled by our interaction from earlier on this question, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I asked you whether you-
Mullin: Then don't put words.
Murphy: I'm just gonna read back what you said. I said, ‘will you or will you not implement court orders,’ and your answer to me was, ‘if we didn't think the courts were politicized, then I'd be able to answer that, but we see the courts over and over again use their bench for political pain.’ I just asked–
Mullin: That's a true statement. Tell me I’m wrong on that one. Is that not right, or wrong?
Murphy: I'm asking you, this is honestly–
Mullin: Because I remember when, I remember when–
Murphy: We certainly, let me ask–
Mullin: I remember when we were putting the questions against President Biden, you were…
Murphy: I have limited time. Can I ask the question? I'm asking you a legitimate question. There is no end to this. If Republican administrations don't implement court orders that they believe to be politicized, then Democratic administrations will not implement court orders that they believe to be politicized. That's–
Mullin: That’s exactly what the Biden or Biden administration–
Murphy: But do you see that as a desirable result? Shouldn't both Republican and Democratic administrations implement court orders regardless of what they believe to be the political–
Mullin: Senator Murphy, what I would love to see is the courts actually do their job and not play politics, but you saw it, as you felt, during the Biden administration. And we definitely see it right now. If you want to start talking about court orders that was issued against the Biden administration versus Trump administration, we can start talking numbers, but we also see that the upper courts always overturn… or a lot of times overturned, these lower courts. So, you tell me if they're being politicized. We both.. well they are.
Murphy: I agree that I have questions as to whether certain courts are making–
Mullin: And what I've made it very clear is that we're going to enforce the law and never break the Constitution.
Murphy: I’m going to ask for additional time. I agree that there is politics involved in judicial decisions. I do not think that gives an excuse to either a Democratic or Republican administration to ignore those court orders. I think that's actually the end of our republic if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation. That’s the difference between you and I.
Mullin: No, that's not actually true, because there were several court orders that was put in against the Biden administration, specifically towards immigration and our border, and I didn't hear you one time speak out against the Biden administration for ignoring that.
Murphy: Well, I mean, actually, actually, that's not true. I can really, I will say, I will say, I will send you endless statements from me about how I believe the Biden administration was going above and beyond the ability that the law allowed them on immigration policy.
Let me ask you a final question: the nonprofit security grant program – really important program in Oklahoma and in Connecticut. Wish it wasn't necessary, I assume you wish it wasn't necessary, but it provides grants to churches and to synagogues and to Jewish community centers and to mosques to provide security. You've recommended a lower amount in this budget, and maybe most concerningly, we haven't gotten FY25 grants out the door. I know you believe this is an important program in Connecticut. It's vitally necessary. We don't get nearly as many needy applications filled. as we would like. Just a commitment to work with us to try to get that number as high as we can? If we can eventually get a budget done, and a commitment to try to get those ‘25 grants out the door as quickly as possible.
Mullin: We will work with that, with you on that. Absolutely.
Murphy: It's an area of, I think, deep, deep agreement between us. Thank you.
###