Justice Department asks two Minnesota federal judges to step aside from immigration cases over New York Times interviews

The Justice Department is trying to remove two senior federal judges in Minnesota from immigration-related cases, arguing that comments they made to the New York Times about the Trump administration’s immigration surge in the state call their impartiality into question. The motions, filed Tuesday, Oct. 20, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, target Senior Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, according to Bloomberg Law and MPR News.

The move escalates a weeks-long clash between the department and Minnesota’s federal bench, which began with an ethics complaint the Justice Department filed against the judges on Sept. 30.

What cases are the recusal motions about?

The two motions are separate and each targets a single case, MPR News reported:

• Judge Schiltz’s case: The government is seeking to revoke the citizenship of Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali American man who pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge in 2009 and received a three-year prison sentence.
• Judge Tunheim’s case: Prosecutors allege that Hester Sophia Weihmann, a legal permanent U.S. resident from South Africa, voted illegally in the 2024 election. MPR News said she is among at least 11 people charged in Minnesota with voting as a noncitizen.

In both motions, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. argues the judges cannot be impartial because they were quoted in a Sept. 17 New York Times story he characterized as a “partisan critique” of the administration’s immigration operation in Minneapolis. The department posted screenshots of both motions on X on Wednesday, saying the judges’ remarks “unquestionably” call into doubt whether they can be impartial, Bloomberg Law reported.

What did the judges tell the New York Times?

The Times story looked at last winter’s immigration enforcement operation, known as Operation Metro Surge, and its effect on the federal courts. According to the Justice Department, Schiltz sat for a 90-minute interview, and six other members of the Minnesota federal bench also spoke to the paper.

MPR News reported that Tunheim told the Times immigration agents were not “arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.” Schiltz, who was Minnesota’s chief judge during the surge, said ICE’s violation of hundreds of court orders threatened the rule of law. “If you don’t have it, you have either anarchy or you have authoritarianism,” he told the paper.

The department’s recusal motion also cites remarks Schiltz made at an Oct. 2 symposium at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, where he repeated many of the same points, according to MPR News.

What is the earlier judicial misconduct complaint?

On Sept. 30, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota district judges who spoke to the Times. It asked that those judges step aside from any matters involving the Department of Homeland Security and requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit open an investigation.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the time that the judges’ conduct “has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”

Schiltz has defended his comments. In a Sept. 30 statement to MPR News, he said he acted “well within the ethical rules,” pointing to a February advisory opinion stating that federal judges may speak and write on “core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.” He told MPR News this week that he cannot comment on the complaint because proceedings at the Eighth Circuit are confidential.

Who decides whether the judges recuse?

Under the usual process, Schiltz and Tunheim will rule on the motions themselves, St. Thomas law professor Greg Sisk told MPR News. If they decline to step aside, the department could ask other district judges to weigh in, but Sisk said the law makes it hard to get an appeals court to force judges off a case.

Sisk suggested the motions may be aimed beyond these two cases. “I would imagine that they’re doing it in large part to send a message to every other federal judge,” he said.

Daniel Gerdts, the Minneapolis attorney who represents Ahmed, called the department’s arguments “contrived and baseless,” telling MPR News that he has sometimes disagreed with Schiltz’s rulings but never questioned his impartiality.

What happens next?

No ruling on either motion had been reported as of Thursday afternoon. The Eighth Circuit has not publicly announced any action on the misconduct complaint, which remains confidential.

FAQ

What is a recusal motion? A request asking a judge to step aside from a case because of a possible conflict or a reasonable question about impartiality.

Which judges are involved? Senior U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim of the District of Minnesota.

Are the judges accused of a crime? No. The dispute is about judicial ethics and whether they can hear these specific cases.