YES!! AND NO! COURT ORDERS LAWYERS TO HAVE ACCESS TO DETAINEES IN MINNESOTA INCLUDING SINGLE MOTHER OF 3 RECOVERING FROM CRANIOTOMY WHOSE HEAD ICE AGENT SLAMMED INTO A WALL
Sorry for the long headline, but my blood is boiling (and if you read the complaint, orders, and declaration of one of the detainees (all included for Notes from the Front members) yours will be too. You have been warned).
As has also happened elsewhere, lawyers and representatives in Minnesota have been denied access to ICE detainees. One of the places in Minnesota where ICE is holding detainees is the Whipple Building. Ironically, the Whipple Building is named after Bishop Whipple, who was an 19th century *advocate for the rights of non-citizens*! In fact, the very first words in the Complaint that initiated this lawsuit (a class action complaint at that) are:
” “Nations, like individuals, reap exactly what they sow; they who sow robbery reap robbery.”
-Bishop Henry Whipple, namesake of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building.”
Now, while you might be forgiven for not knowing that elected representatives have a legal right to gain access to a detention facility, *nobody* doesn’t know that the incarcerated have a right to talk with their attorney, and that their attorney has an absolute right to access their clients.
Well, nobody other than ICE and CBP agents. (Of course, they actually know it, they apparently just don’t care.)
So when the lawsuit talking about lawyers being refused access to their clients who were detained in the Whipple Building was filed, it was a pretty clear slam-dunk. But not before many of those detainees had been brutalized – mentally, emotionally, and even physically.
The 26-page complaint includes:
“Since at least January 11, 2026, federal agents at Whipple, including FPS officers and at least one ICE attorney, have told attorneys for detainees that no visitation between detainees and attorneys is or has ever been permitted at Whipple.”
And:
“Many detainees who arrive at Whipple are not granted an outgoing phone call, which could be used to contact an attorney or to contact family members who might have arranged representation or be able to do so. Instead, officials at Whipple have informed detainees’ attorneys that detainees will not be allowed to make an outgoing phone call until after they have been “booked,” by which time the detainees have generally been transferred to a different immigration detention facility—usually or always outside Minnesota.”
And, in fact, this is what happened to one of the detainees who submitted a declaration, “L.H.M”. L.H.M, a single mother of three from Honduras (her youngest child is a U.S. citizen, she and her other two children are here while their asylum claim is being processed) explains that, after being ambushed during her regular immigration check-in, arrested, interrogated, and accused of being part of a Colombian gang (remember, she’s not even Colombian, she’s from Honduras):
“I was placed alone in a cell. I lost track of time. That night, January 27, 2026, I was transported to a facility called “Douglas County” in Wisconsin. I arrived at approximately 11:30 p.m. I remained there for no more than six hours before two officers returned in a van and took me back to the Federal Building in Minnesota. Because of this transfer, I went approximately 24 hours without food. I was not given any opportunity to make a phone call while at Douglas County, Wisconsin.”
It’s like they are playing the shell game with detainees. And that is by far not the worst of it for L.H.M.. Before her trip to Wisconsin and back, this happened, Remember that she had a *craniotomy* just *3 months ago*!
“We were transported to the Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, where other officers were waiting. They spoke Spanish and appeared Latino. They searched us. A female officer slammed my head against the wall while checking my hair. I shouted “my surgery,” and I was afraid she would hit the right side of my head where I had been operated on. I said I preferred that she touch the left side instead. From this time on, my head hurt the whole time I was detained.”
(I need to take a moment to compose myself here.)
Ok, I’m back.
L.H.M.’s declaration is six pages of horrible (again, these documents are all included for Notes from the Front members, and again, you have been warned).
Before we go any further I need to explain something to you. There is a concept in some areas of law known as “next friend”. Basically a ‘next friend’ is someone, usually a relative or, well, a friend, who is not a party to the lawsuit, but who sort of stands in for a person who is unable to file the lawsuit themselves, either because they are legally barred from doing so (such as a minor) or.. wait for it.. because they are incarcerated with no access to a lawyer. Next friends usually (but not always) come up in petitions for Habeas Corpus (remember that is a petition asking the Court to order a prison or other place of incarceration to bring the prisoner before the judge – literally to “bring the body” to the Court).
In this case the primary lawsuit was brought by The Advocates for Human Rights, and within this lawsuit L.H.M. filed a request for Habeas Corpus through her ‘next friend’, C.A..
Well, on Friday the Court ordered that (order included for Notes from the Front members):
“Defendants shall allow full access to all detention facilities in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building to Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel (and party representatives) before Monday, February 9, at 5 p.m. CST. The parties may file supplemental declarations on or before Tuesday, February 10, at 5 p.m. CST. Defendants shall coordinate with their counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel to organize the logistics of access.”
That’s full access by 5:00 p.m. *today*.
THEN, *just yesterday* (yep, on a Sunday) the Court had to elaborate on that order:
“Plaintiffs may have two attorneys and two party representatives attend the Whipple Building visit ordered by the Court;
2. Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may interact with detainees in the Whipple Building on topics relevant to this case; and
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may not carry cellular phones and cameras during the visit.”
The Court having to spell things out like that, like a parent having to intermediate between and scold children, would be laughable… if it weren’t so freaking serious! (Dammit, now my blood is boiling again.)
Notes from the Front members: The Complaint, L.H.M.’s declaration, and both orders, are in your inbox now.
NOTE: To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with, and to protect myself from claims of improper republication, and hey, the trolls, I make documents I find (and at times purchase out of my own pocket) privately available to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents, others may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, our private dropbox, and our private chat for $5 a month.
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-and-no-court-orders-lawyers-to
Source