DOJ files misconduct complaint against Minnesota judges over immigration comments

What DOJ alleges about the judges’ comments

The Times published its account of the Minnesota judges’ experience during the enforcement surge on Sept. 17. In its complaint, DOJ argues that public comments about immigration enforcement can raise doubts about a judge’s impartiality in pending cases, even when the remarks address broader issues rather than the merits of a named case.

The filing focuses in part on Schiltz’s discussion of court orders, staffing pressures and the rule of law. It also objects to Tunheim’s assessment of whom immigration agents were arresting. In comments to the Times reported by CBS News, Tunheim said, “They weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street” — a judgment DOJ contends was improper for a judge to make publicly.

The department’s strongest argument is that impartiality must be apparent as well as real: people appearing before a judge should not have reason to think the judge has already taken a side on a dispute relevant to their case. DOJ cites ethics restrictions on political activity and public statements about pending matters. Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the complaint, saying the department needed to protect its prosecutors and DHS.

That argument remains an allegation in a misconduct complaint. The filing does not establish that any judge was biased in an immigration case, and it does not itself disqualify a judge from hearing one.

Why the judges say they could speak

Schiltz disputes the ethics allegation. He has pointed to a February advisory opinion from the federal judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct that, he says, permits judges to discuss judicial independence and the rule of law. A Minnesota court spokesperson likewise said the judges’ comments complied with ethics rules.

That defense draws a distinction between discussing how a court functions and prejudging a case. The judges were describing pressures on the court during an immigration crackdown, according to their account; DOJ says some of what they said still bore on active litigation. Whether the remarks crossed the ethical boundary is the dispute, not a settled conclusion.

The underlying court-order controversy is separate. In January, Schiltz said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had failed to comply with numerous orders in immigration-related cases. He identified 96 orders across 74 cases, the Associated Press reported. That is Schiltz’s account of ICE’s conduct, not a finding made in this misconduct proceeding.

CBS News reports that the Trump administration began Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota in December 2025. The enforcement push generated detention challenges in federal court, making questions about compliance with court orders part of the judges’ account of what their court faced.

What the recusal request could mean for detention cases

DOJ asks that judges who spoke about immigration cases recuse themselves from matters involving DHS. Recusal means a judge steps aside from a case. The request reaches beyond whether the judges should have spoken publicly: it could affect which judges hear cases brought by people contesting detention.

There are competing concerns. Courts need to protect litigants from judges who cannot be impartial, or reasonably appear unable to be. They also need room to explain institutional problems and defend judicial independence when executive-branch conduct affects court proceedings. Neither concern resolves the ethics allegation without examining what each judge said and how it relates to the cases before the court.

The Eighth Circuit has not been reported to have opened an investigation or acted on DOJ’s recusal request. For now, the complaint puts those questions before the judicial misconduct process; it has not changed who hears Minnesota’s immigration cases.