US Justice Department Files Complaint Against Minnesota Judges Over Immigration Comments

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a formal complaint accusing several federal judges in Minnesota of misconduct. The complaint focuses on judges who spoke with The New York Times about immigration cases tied to the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts in the state.

At least seven judges, including Senior Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, spoke to the newspaper about the surge of immigration detention cases. Their remarks criticised the handling of these cases, with Schiltz describing the situation as a “grave threat to the rule of law” and Tunheim noting that many detainees were not “dangerous criminals,” challenging claims made by immigration authorities.

The DOJ’s complaint, addressed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, calls for these judges to be removed from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security. The department argues that the judges’ public comments show a bias against immigration enforcement and violate judicial ethics rules that discourage judges from commenting on pending cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the judges’ actions have undermined public trust in an impartial judiciary. The complaint specifically highlights comments by Schiltz and Tunheim but also includes other judges who spoke anonymously to the media.

The judges had been managing a large increase in habeas petitions related to immigration detention, which rose sharply during the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge.” Behind the scenes, the Minnesota judges coordinated through meetings and shared materials to handle the high volume of cases, a practice that has drawn scrutiny regarding judicial independence.

While judges are generally barred from public discussions about ongoing cases, they can speak on judicial independence and court administration. Some judges defended their interviews as necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system, while the DOJ maintains that their comments were partisan and improper.

As of now, the complaint is an allegation and no formal ruling or disciplinary action has been announced. The case highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the government over immigration enforcement policies.