The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday filed a judicial misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota for interviews they gave to The New York Times criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies in the state. The complaint, submitted to the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, requests that the judges be barred from presiding over cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that their conduct be formally investigated.
The DOJ’s filing follows a New York Times article published on September 17, titled “Trump’s Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns.” The article included interviews with U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz and six other judges from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, who expressed concerns about the administration’s handling of immigration cases during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement initiative in Minneapolis and St. Paul earlier this year. The operation involved thousands of federal agents and sparked widespread protests, including a “national shutdown” protest against ICE in January 2026.
In the complaint, the DOJ alleges that the judges’ public comments violated judicial ethics rules by criticizing an active government policy and potentially undermining public confidence in their impartiality. The filing specifically names Judge Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Judge John Tunheim, appointed by President Bill Clinton, as well as five other unnamed judges. The DOJ argues that the judges’ remarks could reasonably lead the public to question their fairness in immigration-related cases involving DHS.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the complaint during a press conference, stating, “We have a right, just like every litigant in court, to have a judge that will be fair and impartial.” Blanche also highlighted unrelated allegations of voter fraud during the briefing, noting that prosecutors in Minnesota had secured an indictment against 10 noncitizens for allegedly casting votes unlawfully in prior elections.
The complaint requests that the 8th Circuit take two primary actions: 1) Force the recusal of the seven judges from any DHS-related cases, and **2) Conduct a formal review of their conduct. The DOJ’s filing argues that the judges’ interviews constituted “improper and unethical conduct” under federal judicial rules, which generally restrict judges from publicly commenting on ongoing cases or government policies.
Judge Schiltz, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, was quoted in The Times article describing Operation Metro Surge as a “grave threat to the rule of law.” He cited Russia, China, and North Korea as examples of countries where judicial independence is compromised, warning that the U.S. risked similar erosion if such enforcement tactics continued. Judge Tunheim, in the same article, disputed the administration’s claim that it was targeting only the “worst of the worst” immigrants in Minnesota.
The DOJ’s complaint does not allege that the judges acted out of partisan motives but instead frames the issue as a violation of judicial ethics. The filing states that the judges’ public statements could “reasonably be perceived as prejudging” matters before their courts, thereby compromising their impartiality. The complaint also notes that DHS frequently has cases pending in the District of Minnesota, including immigration matters before Schiltz and Tunheim.
The 8th Circuit now has the authority to decide whether to accept the DOJ’s request for recusal and investigation. If the court grants the request, the seven judges would be barred from presiding over DHS cases until the review is completed. The judges have not publicly responded to the complaint as of publication.
The controversy comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and federal judiciary over immigration enforcement, with critics arguing that the administration’s policies have overstepped legal boundaries and supporters contending that the judges’ public statements politicize the courts. The DOJ’s action marks an unusual escalation in judicial oversight, as misconduct complaints against federal judges are typically handled internally by judicial councils rather than through direct appeals to circuit courts.