DOJ Seeks to Disqualify Judges Who Spoke Out Against Deportation Surge to the New York Times
The Justice Department is asking two federal judges in Minnesota to step aside from their immigration cases. The reason? The judges spoke to the New York Times and publicly criticized how the Trump administration is handling its big immigration crackdown, called Operation Metro Surge.
The judges are Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. The DOJ filed motions this week asking them to recuse themselves. The department argues that by talking to the Times, the judges made it look like they can’t be fair in cases involving immigration enforcement.
One of the cases involves a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty to helping terrorists. The judge in that case is Schiltz. The other case is about a South African guy accused of lying about being a US citizen to vote. Tunheim is the judge there.
In a statement posted on X, the DOJ said impartiality is key to trust in the courts. They said the judges’ participation in that highly partisan New York Times article, especially Schiltz’s follow-up comments, makes their fairness look doubtful.
But Schiltz isn’t backing down. He told Fox News that no one has given him a real reason to step aside. He said he didn’t comment on any specific case in the article. He just spoke up for the rule of law and following court orders. That shouldn’t be a reason to recuse, he said. Tunheim didn’t respond.
This all started back in September when the Times published that big story. The story revealed that seven Minnesota judges, including Schiltz and Tunheim, talked about how crazy busy the courts got because of the deportation raids. Schiltz told the Times the administration’s handling of it was a “grave threat to the rule of law.” Tunheim suggested the agents weren’t really targeting dangerous criminals.
The DOJ already filed a misconduct complaint about this back in September. They said the judges broke ethics rules by talking to the press about pending stuff. Attorney General Todd Blanche said they messed up public trust.
The Times also reported that behind the scenes, these judges were sharing emails and using a spreadsheet to coordinate how they handled the flood of cases. The chief judge said they still decided every case on their own, though.
Legal experts, like Charles Stimson from the Heritage Foundation, said judges usually keep their mouths shut about cases. Talking to the Times, especially a paper like the Times, is a huge mistake. If it was just the interviews, Stimson would have recused himself. But he noted it’s tricky because judges have to judge their own bias.
If the judges say no to the DOJ, the department can ask the Eighth Circuit to review it.
