Minnesota Judges' Coordination on Trump Immigration Cases Sparks Debate

Federal judges in Minnesota have revealed extensive behind-the-scenes coordination, including regular email threads and the development of shared templates, to manage an unprecedented flood of habeas petitions challenging detentions during the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge." These disclosures have ignited debate regarding judicial ethics and the line between efficient case management and potential collusion.

Disclosed in a report by The New York Times, the coordination among the Minnesota federal bench involved running email threads, an informal spreadsheet to direct judges to specific legal expertise, and templates designed by some judges to expedite orders for recurring legal questions. This approach was employed as the court faced a dramatic increase in immigration-related litigation.

Robert Luther III, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, described the extensive email chain involving a variety of cases as "very weird and frankly unprecedented." While judges routinely consult colleagues on procedural matters, Luther emphasized that each judge is independently responsible for deciding their assigned cases, making this level of coordination significant.

The coordination has drawn criticism from the Trump administration. James Percival, General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, accused the former chief judge of the district of "essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues" to impede federal immigration enforcement. The Department of Justice also questioned the decision by sitting judges to provide extensive on-the-record interviews about their experiences with the administration's immigration policies.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department stated, "It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration's policies rather than ruling from the bench." The DOJ added, "If judges followed the law in adjudicating cases, there wouldn't be an 'overwhelming' habeas caseload. Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward."

However, Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, who was among the judges interviewed, defended the coordination, asserting that it did not compromise individual decision-making. He highlighted the extraordinary surge in litigation, noting a jump from 12 alien-detainee habeas petitions in all of 2024 to 1,427 through August of the following year. Tostrud stated, "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."

Judges reported that they did not uniformly reach the same conclusions on all legal questions, and that the communication helped them resolve cases quickly and thoughtfully. Tostrud declined to disclose the specific contents of the court's internal working materials, citing that such documents are not public.

Luther drew a distinction between administrative templates, which he called commonplace and appropriate in federal courts, and templates that address the substance of a case. "Templates that deal with administrative matters strike me as entirely appropriate and commonplace in federal courts," Luther said. "Templates for substantive matters — that seems like something altogether different."

The coordination occurred amid a broader conflict between the Minnesota federal bench and the Trump administration over Operation Metro Surge. During the first three months of 2026, Minnesota's federal court received 1,116 habeas petitions, a stark contrast to the two petitions during the same period the previous year. Court staff worked extended hours to manage the influx.

Former Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, who presided during Operation Metro Surge, had previously criticized the administration. In a January 2026 order, he accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of violating nearly 100 court orders that month, warning that "ICE is not a law unto itself."

Federal judicial ethics rules generally restrict judges from commenting on the merits of pending cases but permit explanations of court procedures and broader discussions of the legal system. The DOJ suggested that judges who commented on related matters should consider recusal. Schiltz, however, declined to discuss ongoing cases in his interviews. Judge Nancy Brasel, a Trump appointee, defended judges' public statements on judicial independence, stating, "We are allowed to speak out about judicial independence. And so we should, in order to keep it."

Luther countered, "Judges should be speaking through their judicial orders, not through their surrogates at The New York Times."