Minnesota immigration cases need independent judges, not recusal by accusation

The department says seven Minnesota federal judges spoke to the Times about the court’s experience during Operation Metro Surge. Seven interviewees are not seven judges named individually in the complaint. That distinction matters when the government seeks consequences for particular judges’ conduct.

Blanche’s strongest point deserves a fair hearing. “We have a right, just like every litigant in court, to have a judge that will be fair and impartial,” Blanche said at a press conference, as CBS News reported. He is right that the government, no less than a person challenging detention, deserves a judge who has not decided the case in advance.

Tunheim’s comments about whether immigration agents were arresting dangerous people went beyond a description of courthouse operations. It is fair to examine whether any judge’s public statements suggested prejudgment of a case. It is not fair to assume that an unwelcome assessment of enforcement policy proves bias across all DHS matters. A complaint must connect specific words to an actual ethical concern, not simply register that an official disliked hearing them.

The record behind the judges’ criticism

The context was not an abstract dispute over political speech. During Operation Metro Surge, Minnesota judges handled petitions from immigrants challenging detention. CBS News reported that Schiltz said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had failed to comply with 96 orders in 74 cases. That is Schiltz’s assessment, not an independently established count of proven violations in every instance. It does show that government compliance with court orders was part of the dispute the judges were discussing.

Schiltz has defended his remarks as consistent with judicial ethics. A February advisory opinion, described by the American Bar Association, recognizes that judges may speak about judicial independence and the rule of law. It also cautions them to protect impartiality and public confidence. Neither side can honestly take only the half it likes: Permission to defend the courts is not permission to prejudge litigants, and a duty of restraint is not a gag on explaining threats to the courts’ work.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the complaint an attempt to intimidate judges and said officials unhappy with rulings should appeal. His accusation is an argument, not proof of the department’s motive. Yet the recusal request creates a real power question. If government lawyers can secure broad disqualification by objecting to judges’ accounts of what happened in their courts, the government gains leverage over which judges hear challenges to its actions. People contesting detention have an equal claim to an impartial court, not one shaped by a litigant’s dissatisfaction with judicial scrutiny.

An evidence test, not a loyalty test

The judicial-conduct rules give Colloton an initial review. They require dismissal, among other grounds, when allegations lack sufficient evidence to raise an inference of misconduct. If a complaint is neither dismissed nor concluded, a special committee investigates and recommends action to the judicial council. That procedure offers a way to take a substantiated allegation seriously without treating an allegation as a verdict.

It also has a boundary. The federal judiciary’s guidance on conduct complaints says they cannot be used to challenge the merits of a judge’s decision; appeals serve that purpose. Public remarks present a separate ethics question, but the distinction still matters when the complainant is an executive branch defending its conduct in court.

Colloton should examine what each judge actually said against the applicable ethics guidance. He should dismiss unsupported allegations and, if the complaint is neither dismissed nor concluded, appoint a special committee under the rules. Above all, he should not let the request for recusal stand in for proof. That is how the Eighth Circuit can hold judges accountable without giving the government a tool to pressure the courts that hear cases against it.