DOJ moves to boot two federal judges from immigration cases over remarks to media: ‘Extraordinarily imprudent’

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’sOperation Metro Surgehas 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.”

Read More → Former German spy chief arrested on suspicion of espionage, attempted treason

OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE AT CENTER OF TRUMP’S ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND CASE HIT WITH MISCONDUCT CLAIM

A federal law enforcement agent outside a home during a raid in south Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan.13, 2026.(Victor J.Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Justice Department’s formal recusal demand followsDOJ 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 ajudicial misconduct complaintagainst Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesotajudgeswho participated in the Times report, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate.Attorney General Todd Blanchesaid their conduct had “undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”

Federal Judge Patrick J.Schiltz after an oath of citizenship ceremony.(David Brewster/Star Tribune via Getty Images)

“It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench,�“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.

“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.

Read More → Who is Navi Pillay?Nobel Peace Prize winner’s UN record renews fierce antisemitism accusations

The Justice Department, however, has accused Schiltz and the other judges of “publicly” taking sides in the ongoing battle over Trump’s deportation agenda.

Acting U.S.Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks during a news conference at the Robert F.Kennedy Department of Justice building on April 7, 2026.(Getty Images)

“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 thelargest denaturalization effort in Department historyto restore trust and integrity in U.S.citizenship,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote.

Schiltz declined to comment on the Justice Department— 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.

Read More → French PM rejects police brutality claims after teens severely injured in protests: ‘Accidents happen’

“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.”

�s request for comment.

People walk past The New York Times Building, a 52-story skyscraper on the west side of Midtown Manhattan on January 14, 2025, in New York City.(Al Drago/Getty Images)

Charles “Cully�

“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.”

STATE’S LARGEST MOSQUE LEADER’S DEPORTATION FIGHT TAKES DRAMATIC TURN AS TRUMP ADMIN SCORES MAJOR WIN

Asked what he would do if the New York Times interviews were the only facts at issue, Stimson said he would step aside.

Read More → Democrats furious after pollster boosting far-left candidates admits fabricating surveys: ‘Absolute scumbags’

“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.

A gavel sits on a judge’s bench as people leave court.(iStock)

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 fromthe Eighth Circuit,where a three-judge panel would determine whether the government has met the legal standard for recusal.

onelink.me/xLDS?pid=AppArticleLink&af_web_dp=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.

DOJ declined to comment further Thursday beyond its public statement.�s question about whether the department would appeal if Schiltz or Tunheim denies the recusal motions.

C.-Baltimore Metro Area.