DOJ moves to boot federal judges from immigration cases over NYT interview

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 argued the judges improperly commented on the Trump administration's immigration enforcement while related cases were still pending, undermining public confidence in their impartiality.

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

"These judges talked to the media, or at least The New York Times, about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner which the Department views as a clear violation of their ethical duties," Blanche said.

But, whether that happens, however, is not up to the Justice Department.

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

The Justice Department's complaint stemmed from a Sept. 17, 2026, New York Times article in which Judge Schiltz and Tunheim and six other Minnesota federal judges discussed the wave of immigration litigation that followed the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge." The judges described an unprecedented influx of habeas petitions and reflected on how the cases strained court resources, while also expressing concerns about aspects of the administration's immigration enforcement efforts.

Both Schiltz, who sat for a nearly 90-minute interview, and Tunheim made remarks that were specifically cited in the DOJ complaint.

The Justice Department alleged that those statements violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by commenting publicly on ongoing matters and creating the appearance that the judges had prejudged issues that were likely to come before them.

"The Framers insulated judges so they would exercise judgment, not will," Chad Mizelle, chair of Litigation for America First Policy Institute, wrote on X. "What we have now is the inverse: a bench enslaved to its own political ideology. When judges become politicians in a robe, the system starts to collapse."

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

"In 2001, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson gave embargoed interviews, including to the Times, while handling United States v. Microsoft," Mizelle wrote on X. "The D.C. Circuit called that conduct 'deliberate, repeated, egregious and flagrant' and removed him from the case. That standard still applies. What has changed is the willingness of sitting judges to ignore it."

"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 the judges who ruled against federal government actions during Operation Metro Surge - including the Administration's undisputed non-compliance at the time with hundreds of court orders - even though sometimes the court ruled with the government."