Top Justice Department officials filed a misconduct complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over comments they made to The New York Times related to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state.
The six-page complaint targets judges Patrick J. Schiltz and John R. Tunheim, as well as several other anonymous judges who spoke with the Times, demanding that nearly all the district’s active judges recuse themselves from cases involving immigration.
The complaint is an unusual use of ethics procedures to sideline judges the Trump administration disfavors, and it escalates the administration’s ongoing conflict with judges who have sought to check the president’s expansive use of executive power.
The judges told the Times that the administration’s actions during last winter’s immigration enforcement surge had overwhelmed their courthouse and strained their relationship with the DOJ, though they declined to discuss ongoing cases, according to the Sept. 17 article.
Trending
Schiltz, an appointee of President George W. Bush, was particularly candid, telling the paper that the administration’s repeated violations of court orders — which he attributed largely to incompetence and staffing shortages — had “created a grave threat to the rule of law.” Schiltz served as chief judge during the surge and left the role over the summer.
Tunheim, a President Bill Clinton appointee, said immigration agents “weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.”
The DOJ complaint alleges those comments and others had “flagrantly” violated the federal bench’s code of conduct, which generally bars judges from commenting on pending cases or making political or policy statements on issues before them.
The judges were “indisputably engaging in unethical and partisan commentary concerning matters that are still indisputably pending,” the complaint reads.
Quoting from a 2025 Supreme Court decision limiting federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, the complaint says the judges’ commentary was “especially offensive because it implicitly ‘decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.’”
The Justice Department wants the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles misconduct complaints from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to investigate the judges and order them to recuse themselves from any matters involving the Department of Homeland Security.
A spokesperson for the Minnesota district court, Rebeccah Parks, defended the judges’ remarks, saying they were “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times.”
Parks said the federal judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion in February saying federal judges may speak and write “on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.”
“Our judges acted within this capacity,” Parks said in an email.
In the Times article, Schiltz said he hoped his account of the chaos that Trump’s immigration surge created in court would help the public understand how the U.S. government depends on the rule of law.
The Justice Department’s grievances stand in sharp contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric that administration officials have frequently used to disparage the courts.
Senior officials have repeatedly assailed judges who rule against White House policies as “rogue” actors and have likened their rulings to “judicial tyranny” or “judicial sabotage.”
The top lawyer at DHS, James Percival, recently launched a “worst of the worst” campaign on social media, criticizing judges who issue rulings he dislikes. Some federal judges have called on Percival to remove the posts, saying they amount to an intimidation tactic, and a group of former federal and state judges have filed an ethics complaint against him with the Florida Bar.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the complaint against the Minnesota judges at a news conference Wednesday, during which he also unveiled indictments accusing 10 noncitizens in the state of illegally voting in recent elections.
“These judges talked to the media, or at least to The New York Times, about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner that the department views as a clear violation of their ethical duties,” Blanche said.
He added in a social media post that the judges had shown an “obvious bias” against DHS and immigration authorities, and called their interviews with the Times a “partisan press campaign” that threatened the rule of law.
As deputy attorney general, Blanche suggested in a speech that the administration was at “war” with “rogue activist judges” and urged young conservative lawyers to join the fight.
He sought to soften his tone after being confirmed as attorney general this year, telling DOJ employees: “We will always respect the role of the judiciary. We will not engage in or stand for any sort of performative attacks that undermine the institutions that we are sworn to uphold.”
Author
