DOJ Seeks to Disqualify Judges Over Critical Remarks on Immigration Policy

The Justice Department is seeking to disqualify two Minnesota federal judges from presiding over immigration cases, asserting that their public criticisms of the Trump administration's immigration policies, as reported by The New York Times, have compromised their impartiality. The department filed motions asking Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim to recuse themselves from cases involving immigration enforcement.

In a statement, the Justice Department said, "Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary. Judge Schiltz’s and Judge Tunheim’s on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltz’s subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases."

Judge Schiltz is currently overseeing a Justice Department effort to revoke citizenship from a Somali-born man accused of supporting terrorists, while Judge Tunheim is presiding over a case involving a South African national charged with falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and illegally voting. The department contends that the judges' remarks about the administration's immigration crackdown, including "Operation Metro Surge," have raised questions about their ability to remain neutral.

The recusal efforts follow reporting by Fox News Digital that detailed coordination among Minnesota federal judges concerning the surge in immigration cases. Judges Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke to The New York Times in September about Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz reportedly described the administration's handling of the operation as a "grave threat to the rule of law," and Tunheim suggested that agents were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.

In September, the Justice Department had indicated that judges publicly discussing immigration cases might need to step aside. Subsequently, a judicial misconduct complaint was filed against Schiltz, Tunheim, and other Minnesota judges who participated in the Times report, alleging violations of judicial ethics rules. Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that their conduct "undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota."

"It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration's policies rather than ruling from the bench," a Justice Department spokesperson stated in September. "Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward."

The New York Times report highlighted that Schiltz, Tunheim, and other judges handling the influx of immigration cases engaged in regular communication and used informal tracking methods for legal questions. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud previously asserted that each judge independently decided their assigned cases.

However, the Justice Department maintains that Schiltz and the other judges have "publicly" taken sides in the debate over the administration's deportation policies. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote that a judge who has publicly commented on immigration enforcement cannot preside over cases involving key Justice Department initiatives like denaturalization efforts.

When asked about the possibility of recusal in September, Judge Schiltz argued there was no basis for him to step aside, noting that the Justice Department had not yet requested it. He stated that he had not commented on the merits of any particular case but spoke "in defense of the rule of law, a component of which is compliance with court orders," which he argued is not grounds for recusal.

Judge Tunheim has not responded to requests for comment. Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, commented that judges typically avoid public statements on matters that could relate to cases before them, calling the judges' interviews with The New York Times "extraordinarily imprudent."

Stimson indicated that he would recuse himself if faced with a similar situation based solely on the New York Times interview, though he clarified that such recusal would apply to the specific case at issue. He also noted that recusal motions can place judges in the position of evaluating their own impartiality and that the government could seek review from the Eighth Circuit if a recusal request is denied.