DOJ files judicial misconduct complaint against 7 Minnesota judges

The Justice Department wants several Minnesota federal judges removed from immigration cases after accusing them of crossing an ethical line by publicly criticizing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The complaint claimed the justices inappropriately commented on the Trump administration’s immigration actions while related cases were still pending, undermining public confidence in their impartiality.

Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Wednesday that the Justice Department has filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against seven Minnesota federal judges for their participation in a New York Times interview published last September.

“These judges have spoken to the media, or at least to the New York Times, about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner that the department considers a flagrant violation of their ethical duties,” Blanche said.

“UNPRECEDENTED”: JUDGES REVEAL BEHIND-SCENES COORDINATION ON TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION CASES

Todd Blanche, nominee for deputy attorney general of the United States, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, DC, February 12. (Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The complaint specifically names Judge Patrick Schiltz, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, as well as unnamed district judges who also participated in the interviews. The Justice Department asked the Eighth Circuit Judicial Council to investigate the judges’ conduct and order Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves from the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration cases, arguing that their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

But whether that happens is out of the hands of the Justice Department.

Under the federal judiciary’s judicial misconduct process, complaints are reviewed within the judiciary.

The circuit’s chief judge — who for the Eighth Circuit is Bush appointee Steven Colloton — would first determine whether a complaint should be dismissed or referred to a special committee for further investigation, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If a committee is appointed, it submits its findings to the Circuit Judicial Council, which decides whether corrective action is appropriate. The judiciary also notes that the misconduct procedure “may not be used to obtain the automatic disqualification of a judge presiding over a case” or simply challenge a judge’s legal decisions.

OBAMA AND BIDEN JUDGES FIRING NEW FIRE AS TRUMP IMMIGRATION COURT AGREEMENTS HEAT UP: ‘ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE’

Federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz after a citizenship oath ceremony. (David Brewster/Star Tribune via Getty Images)

The Justice Department’s complaint stems from a September 17, 2026 New York Times article in which Justices Schiltz and Tunheim and six other federal judges in Minnesota discussed the wave of immigration litigation that followed the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge.” The justices described an unprecedented influx of habeas petitions and reflected on how these cases have strained judicial resources, while also expressing concerns about some aspects of the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Schiltz, who participated in a nearly 90-minute interview, and Tunheim made remarks specifically cited in the DOJ complaint.

WHITE FIRE Trump foe Boasberg after appeals court blocks judge again in eviction fight

The department argued that these interviews crossed an ethical line because they addressed issues related to active litigation. The complaint cited comments attributed to Schiltz describing the administration’s actions as threatening the “constitutional order” and “the rule of law,” as well as remarks by Tunheim criticizing the administration’s arrests of immigrants.

The Justice Department alleged that these statements violated the United States Code of Conduct for Judges by publicly commenting on pending cases and creating the impression that judges had prejudged issues that might come before them.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Feb. 4 that there have been more than 4,000 arrests of illegal aliens in Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

“The Framers isolated judges so they could exercise their judgment, not their will,” Chad Mizelle, president of the Litigation for America First Policy Institute, wrote on

Mizelle pointed out that in the past, judges have been removed from cases because of their conversations with the press, which “created an appearance of bias.”

“In 2001, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson granted embargoed interviews, including to The Times, while dealing with the case United States v. Microsoft,” Mizelle wrote on

Meanwhile, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the complaint an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate judges.

“This complaint has nothing to do with judicial ethics and everything to do with political punishment,” Ellison said in a statement. “Blanche and Trump are trying to punish judges who ruled against the federal government’s actions during Operation Metro Surge — including the administration’s then-unchallenged failure to comply with hundreds of court orders — even though at times the court sided with the government.”