The U.S. Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, Judge John R. Tunheim and other federal district judges in Minnesota, alleging they violated judicial ethics through public comments about immigration cases and federal enforcement policy.
The complaint was submitted Sept. 30 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Justice Department is asking the appeals court to investigate the judges’ conduct and require those involved to recuse themselves from matters concerning the Department of Homeland Security.
The filing concerns seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota who spoke publicly about the court’s experience during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge. DOJ alleges some of those comments addressed ongoing cases or policy issues connected with matters before the court.
Federal judicial ethics rules restrict judges from commenting publicly on pending cases and from making political or policy statements about matters before them. The Justice Department argues the Minnesota judges crossed those boundaries and created reasonable questions about their impartiality in litigation involving DHS.
Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of Justice views as a clear violation of their ethical duties.
Attorney General Todd Blanche
Todd Blanche said the department believes the conduct damaged public confidence in an impartial federal judiciary.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said the complaint alleges judges used their judicial positions to make public comments about immigration policy rather than limiting themselves to deciding cases.
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. also accused the judges of disregarding their ethical responsibilities and publicly advancing views about federal immigration enforcement. Those assertions are allegations made by DOJ in the complaint, not findings of judicial misconduct.
Schiltz and Tunheim received particular attention in the filing. DOJ describes their conduct as more serious than that of the other judges and argues that some of their statements concerned matters still pending before federal courts.
Schiltz previously criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement over compliance with court orders issued during the Minnesota immigration operation. In January, he identified 96 orders across 74 cases that he said ICE had violated and wrote that the agency was “not a law unto itself.”
The Justice Department now argues that Schiltz’s later public comments about the same period went beyond permissible discussion of judicial administration. Tunheim is also named over comments concerning the people arrested during the enforcement operation and the administration’s characterization of those arrests.
The Minnesota judges dispute DOJ’s interpretation of the ethics rules. Schiltz said his comments were consistent with guidance issued in February by the Committee on Codes of Conduct, which permits federal judges in some circumstances to speak about judicial independence and the rule of law.
A spokesperson for the District of Minnesota also said the judges acted within the ethical standards governing federal judges.
The dispute therefore centers on whether the judges were discussing the administration of justice and judicial independence, as they maintain, or commenting improperly on pending litigation and immigration policy, as DOJ alleges. The Eighth Circuit has been asked to examine that question through the judicial misconduct process.
DOJ is also seeking recusals from cases involving DHS. The department argues the public could reasonably question the judges’ impartiality after their statements about immigration enforcement and the government’s handling of related litigation.
The misconduct complaint does not itself establish that any judge violated federal ethics rules. It initiates a review process in which the allegations and the judges’ conduct will be assessed by the federal judiciary.
The filing adds another dispute between the Trump administration and federal courts over immigration enforcement. Minnesota judges handled a large number of challenges arising from the federal operation, including petitions from people contesting their detention and seeking release.
For the Justice Department, the issue now extends beyond individual immigration cases to whether judges who publicly discussed the operation should continue hearing litigation involving DHS.
The Eighth Circuit will determine how to proceed with the complaint and DOJ’s request for an investigation and recusals.
