5 minBusiness
Justice Department Seeks to Disqualify Two Minnesota Judges Over Immigration Remarks
The Justice Department has filed motions asking two Minnesota federal judges to recuse themselves from immigration cases, arguing that their on-the-record comments to the New York Times about the administration's enforcement operation raise doubts about their impartiality.
The Justice Department is seeking to remove two Minnesota federal judges from cases involving immigration enforcement, arguing that their public criticism of the Trump administration's crackdown has compromised their ability to preside fairly. The recusal motions target Judge Patrick Schiltz and Judge John Tunheim, both of whom spoke on the record to the New York Times in September about Operation Metro Surge, the administration's immigration enforcement effort in the state.
In separate filings, the department argued that the judges' participation in what it called a «highly partisan» article, along with Schiltz's subsequent public comments, «unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases.» The Justice Department posted a statement on X this week saying that «impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation's judiciary.»
The cases at stake are significant. Schiltz is overseeing the department's effort to strip U.S. citizenship from Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al-Shabaab. Tunheim is presiding over the prosecution of a South African national accused of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and illegally voting in the 2024 election.
The dispute traces back to a September New York Times report in which Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven Minnesota federal judges who discussed the flood of immigration cases generated by Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz sat for a roughly 90-minute interview in which he described the administration's handling of the operation as a «grave threat to the rule of law.» Tunheim suggested that agents carrying out the crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.
The Justice Department had already signaled that judges who publicly discussed the administration's immigration cases might need to step aside when the Times report was published. Last month, the department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota judges who participated, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate. Attorney General Todd Blanche said their conduct had «undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.»
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote that «a judge who has publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement cannot then preside over a case concerning one of the Justice Department's key immigration initiatives: pursuing the largest denaturalization effort in Department history to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship.»
The Times report also revealed that the Minnesota judges handling the surge of cases regularly met, communicated through running email threads and used an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks to identify judges to consult about recurring legal questions. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud has said the judges nevertheless decided every case independently. «The bottom line is that each of us made an independent decision with respect to the merits of each and every petition we were assigned,» Tostrud said.
Schiltz declined to comment on the new recusal effort this week. But when asked in September about the possibility of stepping aside, he argued there was no basis for recusal and noted that the Justice Department had not yet asked him to do so. «Neither in the New York Times article nor anywhere else have I commented on the merits of a particular case,» Schiltz said at the time. «Instead, I have spoken in defense of the rule of law, a component of which is compliance with court orders. That is not a cause for recusal.» Tunheim did not respond to a request for comment.
Charles «Cully» Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former federal prosecutor and military judge, said judges ordinarily avoid public comments on matters that could intersect with cases before them. He described the judges' decision to speak to the Times as «extraordinarily imprudent.»
7
