The US Justice Department is seeking to disqualify two federal judges in Minnesota from separate cases after their public remarks about the impact of President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement campaign drew scrutiny from the administration.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed motions requesting the recusal of US District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. The move follows a judicial misconduct complaint filed against both judges last month over interviews they gave to The New York Times about the strain placed on Minnesota’s federal courts during the immigration operation known as “Operation Metro Surge.”
The Justice Department said judicial impartiality is essential to maintaining public confidence in the courts, announcing the latest requests in a post on X.
Court officials declined to comment on the pending motions. However, a spokesperson for the Minnesota federal court previously defended the judges’ interviews, saying their remarks fell within the ethical standards governing federal judges.
Dispute Over Immigration Enforcement
The controversy stems from an article published in September examining the surge of immigration-related cases that reached Minnesota’s federal courts during the previous winter. The operation resulted in hundreds of immigration arrests across the state, placing significant pressure on the judicial system.
Schiltz, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, was serving as the court’s chief judge during the operation. In January, he sharply criticized US Immigration and Customs Enforcement for failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders as judges dealt with complaints from people who said they had been unlawfully detained.
In his interview, Schiltz explained the circumstances surrounding that order and warned that the events unfolding in his court posed a serious threat to the rule of law.
Woodward cited those comments and other public statements in arguing that Schiltz had crossed into a partisan assessment of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The Justice Department wants Schiltz removed from a separate case seeking to revoke the US citizenship of Salah Osman Ahmed. The case, filed in May, concerns Ahmed’s guilty plea in 2009 to providing material support to terrorism through assistance to the militant group al Shabaab.
Woodward argued that a judge who had publicly expressed a position on immigration enforcement should not oversee a case tied to the administration’s broader effort to pursue citizenship revocations.
The department has described its denaturalization campaign as an effort to restore confidence in the integrity of American citizenship. A hearing on the request to remove Schiltz is scheduled for November 23.
Second Judge Faces Similar Challenge
The Justice Department has also asked Tunheim, who was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, to withdraw from a criminal case involving a South African woman accused of illegally voting and falsely claiming US citizenship to cast a ballot.
The motion points to Tunheim’s remarks about Operation Metro Surge, during which he questioned whether authorities were arresting people who posed a danger to the public.
Woodward argued that the judge’s comments raised doubts about his ability to remain impartial in a case involving alleged violations of voting laws. He maintained that public statements capable of creating reasonable concerns about a judge’s neutrality can justify recusal.
The two motions target separate proceedings in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, adding another layer to the dispute between the Justice Department and members of the state’s federal judiciary.
The latest requests follow the department’s earlier misconduct complaint against Schiltz and Tunheim. At the heart of the conflict is whether their public discussion of the court’s experience during the immigration crackdown compromises their ability to hear unrelated cases—or whether their remarks fell within the bounds of permissible judicial commentary.
Neither recusal request has been resolved in the information available.
