After Kristi Noem: The DHS Record and Disqualification
After Kristi Noem: How the 120th Congress Can Build the Record on DHS and Decide on Disqualification
By Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program · November 7, 2026
In short: President Trump fired Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security on March 5, 2026, but she did not leave the government. She served six months as a special envoy and has been a senior advisor at the State Department since October 2026. During her 13 months at DHS, federal courts repeatedly found that the department violated court orders, including 210 violations in 143 cases in Minnesota alone, and held DHS components in contempt.
Two days before she was fired, she told Congress DHS follows "all federal court orders." Senior Democrats referred her to the Justice Department for possible perjury, but no court has found that she personally committed a crime or contempt, and she has not been charged. There is little reason to expect this Justice Department to act. The 120th Congress can still build a sworn record, legislate to stop a repeat, and, if the evidence supports it, impeach her for conduct as Secretary and vote to bar her from future federal office.
Key fact | Detail |
DHS tenure | Secretary of Homeland Security, January 2025 – fired March 5, 2026 (successor took over March 31) |
Current status | Senior advisor to the Deputy Secretary of State since October 2026, after a six-month special envoy post |
Personal findings against her | No final finding that she committed a crime or contempt. A judge found she violated a court rule on public statements; another found she joined a "demonstrably false" campaign against a FEMA official |
Court-order violations by DHS | Minnesota: 210 orders in 143 cases. Contempt holdings in Maryland and Los Angeles. Violations found in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Rhode Island |
Final constitutional findings | Inhumane, unconstitutional holding conditions at 26 Federal Plaza; First Amendment violations in ideological deportations |
Perjury referral | Sen. Durbin and Rep. Raskin, March 16, 2026; no outcome reported. DHS calls the claim "categorically false" |
Statute of limitations | Five years for false statements to Congress and perjury, so March 2026 testimony can be charged until March 2031 |
Barring her from future office | Requires impeachment, conviction by two-thirds of Senators present, then a majority vote to disqualify |
What Did the Courts Actually Find?
The strongest findings are that DHS violated court orders. Most cases name Noem only in her official capacity, so they are findings against the department, not against her personally. Several important rulings were later stayed or reversed, and we note each one.
Findings involving Noem personally
Alien Enemies Act flights. In April 2025, Chief Judge Boasberg found probable cause of criminal contempt for the government's "willful disregard" of his order to turn the March 15 flights around. The Justice Department later said Noem made the final decision to let the transfers proceed, and maintained it was lawful. In December 2025, Boasberg said he could not yet find probable cause against her personally because her sworn declaration said too little. The full D.C. Circuit heard argument on September 29, 2026, and has not ruled.
Public statements in a criminal case. Judge Crenshaw found she violated a court rule limiting public comment on the pending Abrego Garcia prosecution.
A FEMA official's name. On October 13, 2026, a magistrate judge found that Noem, Elon Musk, and others ran a "coordinated public relations campaign" against former FEMA finance chief Mary Comans using "demonstrably false" statements. A separate ruling found her firing ignored constitutionally required process.
DHS violations of court orders during her tenure
Matter | Finding | Status |
Minnesota, "Operation Metro Surge" | Chief Judge Schiltz counted 210 violated orders in 143 cases, which he called "beyond the pale" | Contempt hearing canceled after a release |
Abrego Garcia, Maryland | Judge Xinis found "willful and intentional noncompliance"; the government admitted his removal was "illegal" | He was returned and later released |
South Sudan removals, Massachusetts | Judge Murphy found the removals "unquestionably violative" of his injunction | Supreme Court stayed the injunction |
Chicago warrantless arrests | Judge Cummings found ICE "repeatedly violated" a consent decree | Seventh Circuit affirmed, May 2026 |
Unaccompanied minors and a twice-deported asylum seeker, Maryland | Judge Gallagher held the government in civil contempt twice | 2026 holdings; timing of removals relative to her tenure unclear |
FEMA grant conditions, Rhode Island | Court found FEMA violated its injunction | States allege renewed violations |
Los Angeles agents' phones | DHS held in contempt for failing to image 800+ agents' phones, acting "not in good faith" | July 2026, after her tenure, on a January 2026 order |
Constitutional and statutory findings
Final: Judge Kaplan found ICE's holding conditions at 26 Federal Plaza in New York "inhumane and unconstitutional." Judge Young found the policy of deporting noncitizen students and faculty for pro-Palestinian speech violated the First Amendment.
Preliminary: Unconstitutional conditions at the Broadview, Illinois facility; "deliberate indifference" in using chemical munitions near homes in Portland.
Spending: A judge found FEMA's cancellation of the BRIC disaster-prevention program an "illegal executive overreach" into Congress's power over spending.
Rulings later stayed, reversed, or undercut
The Supreme Court stayed the Los Angeles roving-patrol orders. The Seventh Circuit vacated the Chicago use-of-force injunction as overbroad. The Minneapolis observer injunction was stayed and later dissolved. The D.C. Circuit reversed the expedited-removal ruling. And the Supreme Court's June 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe substantially undercut the findings that her Temporary Protected Status terminations were unlawful. A fair record includes these.
Still only allegations
The perjury referral, the Inspector General's claim that DHS leadership "systematically obstructed" 11 inquiries (which she denied), a pending Hatch Act complaint, and an impeachment resolution (H.Res. 996) that saw no action. Reporting on the $220 million ad contract investigation cites no allegation against Noem herself.
Why Won't the Justice Department Act, and Why Does a Record Still Matter?
The clearest test case is the perjury referral. On March 16, 2026, Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Jamie Raskin asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Noem made false statements to Congress on March 3 and 4, 2026. They cited her testimony that DHS follows "all federal court orders," days after Chief Judge Schiltz documented 210 violations, along with her statements on the ad campaign, the detention of U.S. citizens, and detention conditions. A Justice Department spokesperson called the referral a "political stunt." Even the referring Members said they had low expectations.
The department is now led by Todd Blanche, the President's former defense lawyer. (Disclosure: Biazzo Law publicly opposed Mr. Blanche's nomination.) The President can also pardon any federal offense, and Noem continues to serve in his administration.
None of this means Noem committed a crime. False-statement and perjury cases require proof that a witness knowingly lied, not just that a statement was wrong. She is presumed innocent, and DHS calls the perjury claim "categorically false." The question is whether anyone independent will ever weigh the evidence.
A congressional record matters because:
It preserves a future case. The statute of limitations for false statements to Congress and perjury is five years. Testimony from March 2026 can be charged until March 2031, well after a new administration takes office in January 2029.
It tests her own words against the evidence. Congress heard the testimony and can compare it with court records, internal DHS documents, and testimony from career staff.
It informs voters and future appointments. Noem still holds a federal position. Any future nomination to a Senate-confirmed office would go through the Senate, which can rely on the record.
It shows where the law failed. Hundreds of violated court orders are an institutional failure, whoever runs DHS next.
The goal is the truth and deterrence, not retribution. The same standard should apply to any Secretary of any party.
How Can Congress Build the Record?
Congress can reach DHS records, current and former officials, and contractors, as long as each request serves a valid legislative or impeachment purpose. Here is a sequence adapted from our investigative plan.
Preserve and request
Preservation letters on day one to DHS, ICE, CBP, FEMA, the DHS Inspector General, the State Department (her current employer), and the National Archives, covering texts, encrypted apps, and personal devices used for official business.
The decision records. Who decided to continue the Alien Enemies Act flights, the South Sudan removals, and the Minnesota operations, and what legal advice they had.
Compliance records. How DHS tracked court orders, who was told about violations, and when. These records go directly to whether her March 2026 testimony was accurate.
The Inspector General's files on the 11 inquiries it says were obstructed, and the $220 million ad contract.
Take testimony
Noem herself. As a current State Department official, she can be called to testify. Committees should compare her March 2026 testimony with what the documents show she knew.
Career officials. ICE field office directors, DHS lawyers who handled the cases, and FEMA staff can explain how court orders were handled.
Judges' findings. Committee reports can quote the courts' rulings directly.
Witness protections. Use whistleblower protections, and be careful with grants of immunity (18 U.S.C. § 6005), which can make a later prosecution far harder.
Expect executive privilege claims. Document every request, accommodation, and refusal; a record of refusals supports enforcement and can itself become evidence.
Bring in the watchdogs
Ask the Government Accountability Office to review DHS compliance with court orders and FEMA's spending decisions. Protect the DHS Inspector General's access to records and require DHS to report any refusal to Congress.
Can Congress Bar Kristi Noem From Future Federal Office?
Yes, but only through impeachment, a two-thirds Senate vote to convict, and a separate vote to disqualify, and only if the evidence supports it. Leaving the Cabinet does not end Congress's power over conduct as Secretary.
Impeachment after leaving the office
The Constitution allows judgment in impeachment to extend to "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" (Art. I, § 3). The Senate has twice voted that it may try a former official: 37–29 for former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, and 56–44 for former President Trump in 2021. The Congressional Research Service has noted that if impeachment did not reach former officials, Congress could never disqualify anyone who resigned first. Some scholars disagree, and courts are unlikely to decide the question.
Noem's case has a twist. She still works in the federal government, as a senior advisor at the State Department. Impeachment reaches "civil Officers of the United States," and an advisor who was not confirmed by the Senate may not be an officer in the constitutional sense. But an impeachment would rest on her conduct as Secretary of Homeland Security, a Senate-confirmed office, under the Belknap precedent. Whether disqualification would also bar non-officer advisory jobs is unsettled.
How disqualification works
The House investigates and impeaches by a simple majority.
The Senate tries the case. Conviction takes two-thirds of Senators present, 67 if all are present.
The Senate votes separately on disqualification, which by precedent needs a simple majority. Only three officials have ever been disqualified, all federal judges.
There is no shortcut. Congress cannot pass a law barring a named person; that is a bill of attainder, forbidden by Article I, Section 9. Any future nomination to a Senate-confirmed office, however, would need Senate approval.
The honest math
The new Senate majority is well short of 67 votes, so conviction would need bipartisan support. Congress should impeach only if its investigation produces evidence of serious personal misconduct, such as knowingly misleading Congress or personally directing defiance of court orders. Official decisions later set aside, or findings against DHS as a whole, are not enough. A thin impeachment would weaken the record. See How Impeachment Works and Why It Matters Without Conviction.
If Congress Does Not Impeach: Legislative Findings and Reform
Even without impeachment, committees can turn the record into formal legislative findings, written into committee reports and the opening sections of bills, and pass laws to keep this from happening again under any future Secretary. Findings justify the investigation under Trump v. Mazars (2020), help new laws survive in court, and build bipartisan support when they rest on judges' own rulings.
Finding the record supports | Reform it justifies |
Hundreds of court orders violated, including 210 in one Minnesota operation | Require DHS to track every order, certify compliance, and report violations to Congress and the court |
Removals carried out despite orders and without notice | Require notice and a meaningful chance to seek protection before third-country removals |
Unconstitutional detention conditions found by courts | Enforceable detention standards, independent inspections, and public reporting |
An Inspector General reported obstruction of 11 inquiries | Guarantee IG access to records, with penalties and reporting for refusals |
FEMA disaster-prevention funds canceled without Congress | Strengthen Impoundment Control Act enforcement and GAO review |
Testimony to Congress contradicted by court findings | Require agencies to correct inaccurate testimony in writing within a set period |
Two guardrails apply. Findings should describe conduct and gaps in the law, not declare anyone guilty. And new rules should apply to offices, not named people (Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 1977). Our model bills, including the Judicial Independence and Court Order Compliance Act and the Federal-State Cooperation and Use-of-Force Accountability Act, follow both rules.
Our Own Records Requests
In March and April 2026, our Government Oversight Program filed Freedom of Information Act requests with ICE, CBP, and DHS on use of force, Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, and DHS contractors. When DHS and ICE did not respond, we sued. See FOIA Lawsuits Show Why the 120th Congress Must Investigate. A congressional subpoena can reach what FOIA cannot.
Let's Talk
We offer free, nonpartisan briefings to Members and staff of both parties on preservation letters, document requests, court-order compliance legislation, and the law of impeaching former officials.
Request a briefing → · corey@biazzolaw.com · (703) 297-5777
Companion Resources
Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program: every 120th Congress resource in one place
Open Letter to the 120th Congress: Restore Checks & Balances
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Kristi Noem been found to have broken the law? No court has made a final finding that she personally committed a crime or contempt, and she has not been charged. Courts found that DHS violated court orders many times during her tenure, and one judge found she violated a court rule on public statements.
Did Kristi Noem resign from DHS? No. President Trump fired her on March 5, 2026. She then served six months as special envoy for the Shield of the Americas and became a senior advisor at the State Department in October 2026.
Was Kristi Noem referred for perjury? Yes. On March 16, 2026, Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Jamie Raskin referred her March 2026 testimony to the Justice Department, citing her claim that DHS follows "all federal court orders." No outcome has been reported, and DHS calls the claim false.
Can Congress impeach a former Cabinet secretary? The Senate has said yes twice, in 1876 and 2021. Some scholars disagree, and the courts have not decided the question.
Can Congress bar Kristi Noem from future federal office? Only by impeaching her, convicting her by two-thirds of Senators present, and then voting by majority to disqualify her. Congress cannot bar a named person by ordinary law.
How long can she be prosecuted for her March 2026 testimony? The statute of limitations for false statements to Congress and perjury is five years, so until March 2031.
This post is public education from the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, a nonpartisan public-service initiative of Biazzo Law, PLLC. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Most rulings described here are against DHS in official-capacity cases; several are preliminary, stayed, or reversed. Ms. Noem has not been charged with any crime and is presumed innocent. Biazzo Law is the plaintiff in the FOIA cases described and publicly opposed the nomination of Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Comments