DOJ files Minnesota federal judges misconduct complaint

DOJ Files Misconduct Complaint Against Minnesota Federal Judges

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against federal district judges in Minnesota, targeting members of the bench who spoke publicly about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation in the state. The complaint was submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, asking the appellate court to investigate the judges' conduct and require those involved to step aside from litigation involving the Department of Homeland Security.

Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the filing during a Wednesday press conference, stating that prosecutors in Minnesota had also secured an indictment against ten noncitizens for allegedly casting votes unlawfully in prior elections. Blanche argued that the judiciary's public commentary damaged public confidence in an impartial federal forum.

"We have a right, just like every litigant in court, to have a judge that will be fair and impartial. We have no choice but to act."

Todd Blanche, Attorney General, via CBS News

The dispute centers on interviews given for a New York Times article published on Sept. 17, titled "Trump's Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns." According to Department of Justice filings, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz participated in a 90-minute interview for the piece, while Judge John R. Tunheim and six other active members of the Minnesota federal bench also spoke with reporters regarding Operation Metro Surge.

Allegations of Ethical Breaches and Requests for Recusal

The Justice Department asserts that the judges violated federal judicial ethics rules that prohibit magistrates from commenting publicly on pending cases or making political and policy statements concerning matters before the court. The complaint is signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr.

Federal officials singled out Schiltz and Tunheim, describing their conduct as particularly egregious. In his interview with The New York Times, Schiltz stated that the administration's actions created a grave threat to the rule of law.

"The rule of law to democracy is like oxygen to a human body. It is something that you absolutely need to survive, and yet it's something that people just take for granted."

Patrick J. Schiltz, U.S. District Judge, via ca.news.yahoo.com

Tunheim was quoted in the same article disputing assertions by the Department of Homeland Security that enforcement actions targeted the most dangerous offenders.

"They weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street."

John R. Tunheim, U.S. District Judge, via ca.news.yahoo.com

McCotter and Woodward contended in the complaint that Schiltz's comments were overly political and concerned matters pending before the courts, while Tunheim's statements were equally unethical. The DOJ requested that the Eighth Circuit order both Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves from all matters involving the Department of Homeland Security, while launching a broader inquiry into the rest of the participating judges.

Judicial Defense and Broader Political Reactions

The targeted judges and representatives for the federal district court strongly disputed the Justice Department's interpretation of judicial ethics. Schiltz defended his outreach by pointing to guidance issued in February by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct.

That advisory opinion stated that ethical principles permit federal judges to speak or write about core judiciary matters, including the rule of law, judicial independence, and the defense of colleagues from illegitimate criticism. A spokesperson for the District of Minnesota asserted that the judges acted fully within those operational standards.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement sharply condemning the Justice Department's action, framing it as an attempt at political retribution rather than accountability.

The confrontation follows months of legal friction stemming from Operation Metro Surge, which was launched in December 2025 and brought thousands of immigration authorities to Minnesota. The operation generated widespread protests, clashes, and scores of habeas corpus petitions from detained migrants. During the height of the operation, Schiltz issued extraordinary orders accusing ICE of repeated noncompliance, citing dozens of instances where agency actions violated court directives and writing that the agency was not a law unto itself. Border czar Tom Homan announced a drawdown of the operation in February.

The Eighth Circuit will determine how to proceed with the review process established under judicial misconduct rules, setting up a formal evaluation of whether public discussions of judicial independence crossed into impermissible commentary on pending litigation.