The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against nearly every federal district judge in Minnesota, alleging they violated ethics rules by discussing pending immigration cases with The New York Times.
The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against nearly every federal district judge in Minnesota, accusing them of breaking the code of judicial conduct by speaking to The New York Times about immigration cases that were still pending in court.
The complaint names Judge Patrick Schiltz and Judge John Tunheim, along with anonymous district judges serving on the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. It asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to investigate the judges and to order the two named jurists to step away from any matter involving the Department of Homeland Security.
The filing is one of the most direct confrontations between the Justice Department and the federal bench since the administration's immigration enforcement surge began, and it signals that the department intends to press its case in court rather than absorb rulings it considers unfair.
At the center of the complaint is a New York Times story published September 17 under the headline "Trump's Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns." In that article, Schiltz sat for a 90-minute interview and described what he called repeated violations of court orders by the administration.
The Times reported that six of the seven judges who held active status in Minnesota at the time also agreed to speak with reporters about the federal immigration crackdown in the state, known as Operation Metro Surge.
Justice Department officials said those conversations crossed a clear ethical line. Judges are barred from commenting publicly on pending cases or making political statements about matters that are or have been before them.
"Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner that the Department of Justice views as a clear violation of their ethical duties," Attorney General Todd Blanche said. "Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota."
Blanche announced the filing at a press conference in Washington, describing the step as forced. "We have a right, just like every litigant in court, to have a judge that will be fair and impartial," he said. "We have no choice but to act."
The complaint, signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, argues that Schiltz and Tunheim were the most egregious offenders.
Officials described Schiltz's remarks as overly political and tied to matters that were pending before him or on appeal. They called Tunheim's comment less verbose but equally unethical. In the Times article, Tunheim disputed the administration's claim that it was arresting the worst of the worst in Minnesota.
"They weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street," Tunheim told the newspaper.
Woodward framed the complaint as a defense of judicial neutrality. "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society," he said. "But public confidence in judicial impartiality cannot survive if judges seek out media attention and pander to the press."
McCotter was blunter, arguing that judges who launch a partisan press campaign while exceeding their authority pose the real threat to the rule of law.
Minnesota has become a central battleground over how far the federal government can go in enforcing immigration law. The administration has defended its operations as a targeted effort to remove dangerous criminals, while critics on the bench and in state government have accused agents of sweeping up people with no criminal records.
The department has increasingly turned to the courts to defend that work. It recently went to court over an Ohio court that refused to allow ICE courthouse arrests, part of a pattern of legal pushback against local and judicial limits on enforcement.
The same press conference produced a second headline: federal prosecutors in Minnesota announced an indictment against 10 noncitizens accused of casting votes unlawfully in prior elections. Officials presented the two actions together as evidence of a single, coordinated effort to restore integrity to both the immigration system and the ballot box.
The complaint now sits with the Eighth Circuit, which must decide whether to open an investigation and whether to compel recusal. If the appeals court orders the judges to step aside from DHS matters, it would hand the administration a significant procedural win in a state where its enforcement policies face constant legal challenge.
Legal observers expect the judges to contest the filing, arguing that the ethics rules do not bar general commentary on court administration or that the complaint is a pressure tactic. Either way, the dispute is likely to sharpen a broader question heading into the midterms: who gets to decide when the judiciary has overstepped, and who holds judges accountable when they take their grievances public.
For now, the administration has made its position unmistakable. It will not treat criticism from the bench as something to quietly endure. It will take the fight to the appellate court and let the record speak.
The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against nearly every federal district judge in Minnesota, alleging they violated ethics rules by discussing pending immigration cases with The New York Times.
freedomlinedispatch.com
