Two federal judges from Minnesota, who publicly criticized the Trump administration’s immigration policies in an interview with the New York Times, are now facing efforts from the administration to disqualify them from cases related to immigration enforcement.
Judge Patrick Schiltz is managing a case regarding Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born individual who, in 2009, admitted to providing material support for terrorism after joining al-Shabaab. Meanwhile, Judge John Tunheim is overseeing the prosecution of a South African national charged with falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and voting illegally in the 2024 election. The Justice Department has filed motions requesting both judges to recuse themselves, claiming their involvement in the New York Times report critical of President Trump’s Operation Metro Surge raises concerns about their ability to impartially handle these cases.
The Justice Department stated, “Impartiality is vital to maintaining public trust in our judiciary.” They argued that the judges’ participation in what they termed a “highly partisan” article raises questions about their neutrality. Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven judges from Minnesota who spoke to the Times about the government’s Operation Metro Surge, with Schiltz characterizing the operation’s execution as a threat to the rule of law. Tunheim indicated that agents enforcing immigration laws were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.
In September, after the Times report, the Justice Department had already suggested the judges might need to step aside from immigration cases. Last month, they escalated this by filing a misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim, and other judges involved, alleging violations of judicial ethics and seeking an investigation from the Eighth Circuit. Attorney General Todd Blanche expressed that their actions have eroded public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.
Back in September, a Justice Department spokesperson criticized the judges’ public comments, emphasizing that judges should ideally refrain from discussing matters that might relate to cases they preside over. The Times article highlighted that these judges regularly communicated and coordinated on the influx of cases from Operation Metro Surge, yet Chief Judge Eric Tostrud insisted they made independent decisions on every case.
The Justice Department has accused Schiltz and the others of publicly aligning with opinions against the Trump administration’s deportation agenda. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward noted that a judge cannot take a political stance on immigration enforcement and still preside over relevant cases. Schiltz, when contacted about the DOJ’s request for recusal, did not provide a comment but previously maintained that he saw no grounds for stepping aside, mentioning that the DOJ hadn’t requested such action.
Legal expert Charles Stimson commented on the imprudence of judges publicly engaging with media about ongoing immigration cases, suggesting that he would personally consider recusal if just the Times interviews were the issue at hand. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that recusal motions place judges in a complex position of self-evaluating their impartiality, and it’s hard to predict outcomes without a full record of the cases involved.
If either judge denies the DOJ’s recusal request, it could lead to an appeal for review by the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel would determine whether the legal criteria for recusal have been met. The Justice Department, beyond its statements, has not disclosed whether they would appeal if Schiltz or Tunheim chooses not to recuse themselves.
