The Justice Department alleges that Minnesota federal judges breached judicial ethics by discussing the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations with The New York Times.
The department has asked the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate and sought the recusal of Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.
The judges have defended their remarks, citing judicial ethics guidance that permits judges to speak about the rule of law and judicial independence.
The US Justice Department has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against federal judges in Minnesota after several spoke to The New York Times about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations and their impact on the courts. The complaint accuses the judges of violating judicial ethics and asks the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to investigate their conduct. The department has also sought the recusal of two judges from cases involving the federal government, escalating tensions between the administration and the judiciary.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the complaint on September 30, saying the government was entitled to a fair and impartial judge. The filing names US District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, along with other Minnesota district judges whose names were not disclosed publicly in the complaint. The department argues that their public comments about immigration enforcement and pending cases raise questions about their impartiality. The judges and the Minnesota federal court have disputed the allegations, saying their remarks did not violate judicial ethics.
DOJ Challenges Judges’ Public Comments
The complaint follows a New York Times report published on September 17, which examined the effects of Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign in Minnesota. Schiltz, who was appointed by former Republican president George W Bush, told the newspaper that the government’s repeated failure to comply with court orders posed a “grave threat to the rule of law”. Tunheim, appointed by former Democratic president Bill Clinton, questioned the administration’s claim that agents were primarily arresting the “worst of the worst”.
The Justice Department argues that judges should not comment publicly on matters pending before courts or make political statements about government policies involved in litigation. It has asked the Eighth Circuit to investigate the judges’ conduct and sought their recusal from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security. The requests do not, by themselves, remove the judges from their cases; the relevant judicial authorities must consider the department’s arguments.
Dispute Follows Surge In Immigration Cases
Operation Metro Surge began in December 2025, bringing more than 3,000 federal immigration officers to Minnesota as part of the administration’s wider enforcement campaign. The operation triggered protests and legal challenges, with migrants filing petitions seeking release from detention. Schiltz previously identified 96 court orders across 74 cases that he said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated, intensifying scrutiny of the government’s handling of detention proceedings.
The Minnesota court has defended the judges, saying they acted within the ethical rules governing federal judges. Schiltz has pointed to guidance issued by the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct in February, which said judges may speak or write about core judicial matters, including the rule of law and judicial independence. The Justice Department’s complaint represents its interpretation of the ethical rules, rather than a finding that the judges committed misconduct.
The dispute comes amid wider friction between the Trump administration and federal judges over immigration policy and compliance with court orders. The outcome of the complaint and the separate recusal requests will determine whether the judges face further scrutiny or are removed from the cases in question.
