Two Minnesota federal judges who took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown to the New York Times are now fighting the administration’s efforts to disqualify them from cases involving immigration enforcement.
One of those judges, Patrick Schiltz, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to strip U. S. citizenship from Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al- Shabaab. The other, John Tunheim, is presiding over the prosecution of a South African national accused of falsely claiming U. S. citizenship and illegally voting in the 2024 election. The Justice Department filed separate motions asking Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves, arguing that their participation in the New York Times report criticizing President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge has raised questions about whether they can fairly preside over the cases.
“Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary,” the Justice Department said in a statement posted to X this week. “Judge Schiltz’s and Judge Tunheim’s on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltz’s subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases.”
OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE AT CENTER OF TRUMP’S ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND CASE HIT WITH MISCONDUCT CLAIM
The Justice Department’s formal recusal demand follows reporting by Fox News Digital last month detailing unusual behind-the-scenes coordination among Minnesota’s federal bench as judges confronted a massive influx of immigration cases stemming from the administration’s enforcement operation. The report came after Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the Times in September about Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz sat for a roughly 90- minute interview during which he described the administration’s handling of the operation as having created a “grave threat to the rule of law,” while Tunheim suggested to the Times that agents carrying out the administration’s immigration crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.
DOJ had already raised the prospect that judges who publicly discussed the administration’s immigration cases might need to step aside when the Times report was released in September. Last month, DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota judges who participated in the Times report, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate. Attorney General Todd Blanche said their conduct had “undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”
“It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in September. “Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward.”
‘WORST OF THE WORST’ JUDGES ARE SABOTAGING TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION AGENDA, TOP DHS OFFICIAL SAYS
The Times report in question revealed that Schiltz, Tunheim and the other Minnesota judges handling the flood of Operation Metro Surge cases regularly met, communicated through running email threads and used an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks to identify judges to consult about recurring legal questions. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud previously told Fox News Digital that the judges nevertheless independently decided every case assigned to them.
“The bottom line is that each of us made an independent decision with respect to the merits of each and every petition we were assigned,” Tostrud said at the time.
The Justice Department, however, has accused Schiltz and the other judges of “publicly” taking sides in the ongoing battle over Trump’s deportation agenda.
“A judge who has publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement cannot then preside over a case concerning one of the Justice Department’s key immigration initiatives: pursuing the largest denaturalization effort in Department history to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote.
Schiltz declined to comment on the Justice Department’s new effort to disqualify him when reached by Fox News Digital this week. But when Fox News Digital asked him about the possibility of recusal in September, Schiltz argued there was no basis for him to step aside — and pointed to the fact that DOJ had not asked him to do so.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S IMMIGRATION PUSH FUELS ICE’S BIGGEST ARREST MONTH IN AGENCY HISTORY
“I have seen suggestions from the Administration that I might have to recuse in immigration cases, but no one has yet identified any basis for my recusal, which is presumably why the Justice Department has not asked me to recuse,” Schiltz said at the time.
“Neither in the New York Times article nor anywhere else have I commented on the merits of a particular case,” he continued. “Instead, I have spoken in defense of the rule of law, a component of which is compliance with court orders. That is not a cause for recusal.”
Tunheim did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Charles “Cully” Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation who previously served as a federal prosecutor and military judge, told Fox News Digital that judges ordinarily avoid publicly commenting on matters that could intersect with cases before them.
“These judges did something extraordinarily imprudent, and that is to talk to any newspaper, much less the New York Times,” Stimson said. “That was a big no-no.”
Asked what he would do if the New York Times interviews were the only facts at issue, Stimson said he would step aside.
“If we were to just go off of the New York Times interview … I would recuse myself,” Stimson said, noting the recusal would only be from the particular case at issue as opposed to all future cases adjudicating the same principles.
Stimson cautioned, however, that recusal motions put judges in the unusual position of effectively judging their own impartiality and said it would be inappropriate to predict how either motion should ultimately be resolved without the complete record.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
If either judge denies DOJ’s request, Stimson said the government could seek review from the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel would determine whether the government has met the legal standard for recusal.
DOJ declined to comment further Thursday beyond its public statement. A DOJ spokesperson also did not answer Fox News Digital’s question about whether the department would appeal if Schiltz or Tunheim denies the recusal motions.