DOJ Files Misconduct Complaint Against Most Minnesota Federal Judges
On Wednesday, September 30, 2026, the Justice Department filed a complaint with the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit alleging that seven Minnesota federal judges showed bias in comments about Operation Metro Surge.[1]
The complaint asks that the judges be recused from all Department of Homeland Security criminal and civil cases, saying their remarks showed "obvious bias" against DHS.[2] Attorney General Todd Blanche said the filing was needed to defend DOJ prosecutors and DHS and accused the judges of violating their ethical duties by discussing "cases, some of which are ongoing." PBS News DOJ asked the Eighth Circuit Judicial Council to order Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim to recuse from DHS immigration cases, and said Chief Judge Steven Colloton will first decide whether to dismiss or investigate.[3]
A September 17, 2026 New York Times article quoted Judges Patrick Schiltz, John Tunheim and five other Minnesota judges discussing immigration litigation tied to the Trump administration's Operation Metro Surge.[3] In January 2026, Schiltz ruled that ICE failed to comply with nearly 100 court orders and wrote that ICE "is not a law unto itself." PBS News Schiltz later told the Times the surge created "a grave threat to the rule of law" and cited a February 2026 advisory opinion to argue his comments were permitted under ethics rules.[2]
The Minnesota federal court said legal experts have concluded the judges acted within applicable ethics rules when speaking to the newspaper.[2] Coverage has split between DOJ's view that the remarks undermined impartiality and the judges' defenders who cite rulings and ethics guidance to justify public comments.
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Wednesday, September 30, 2026, the Justice Department filed a complaint with the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals alleging that seven Minnesota federal judges violated judicial ethics by speaking to The New York Times about Operation Metro Surge.
- The complaint asserts the judges’ remarks to the Times showed “obvious bias” against the Department of Homeland Security and asks that the judges be recused from all DHS-related criminal and civil cases.
- The filing was publicly framed by Attorney General Todd Blanche as necessary to defend DOJ prosecutors and DHS, saying the judges discussed “cases, some of which are ongoing” in a way DOJ views as a “clear violation of their ethical duties.”
- Judge Patrick Schiltz issued a statement citing a February 2026 advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct to argue his comments about the rule of law and judicial independence were permitted, and he had earlier (January 2026) ruled that ICE failed to comply with nearly 100 court orders, calling ICE “not a law unto itself.”
- A spokesperson for the Minnesota federal court said legal experts have concluded the judges acted within applicable ethics rules in speaking to the newspaper.
- The DOJ complaint was prompted by a September 17, 2026 New York Times article in which Judges Patrick Schiltz, John Tunheim and other Minnesota federal judges discussed immigration litigation stemming from the Trump administration’s Operation Metro Surge.
- DOJ asked the Eighth Circuit Judicial Council to order Judges Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse from Department of Homeland Security immigration cases and explained that Chief Judge Steven Colloton will first decide whether to dismiss the complaint or open an investigation.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- The Fox article specifies that the DOJ complaint was prompted by a September 17, 2026 New York Times article in which Judges Patrick Schiltz, John Tunheim and six other Minnesota federal judges discussed immigration litigation stemming from the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge."
- Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly characterized the judges’ comments to The New York Times as discussing "cases, some of which are ongoing," in a way DOJ views as a "clear violation of their ethical duties."
- The article reiterates that DOJ’s complaint asks the Eighth Circuit Judicial Council to order Judges Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse from Department of Homeland Security immigration cases on the ground that their impartiality could reasonably be questioned, and explains the internal judicial process in which Chief Judge Steven Colloton will first decide whether to dismiss or investigate.
- Fox emphasizes DOJ’s argument that the judges’ remarks undermined public confidence in their impartiality by commenting on Trump administration immigration enforcement while related cases were still pending.
- On Wednesday, September 30, 2026, the Justice Department filed a complaint with the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals alleging that seven Minnesota federal judges violated judicial ethics by speaking to The New York Times about Operation Metro Surge.
- The complaint asserts that remarks to the Times about the strain from the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge showed 'obvious bias' against the Department of Homeland Security, and DOJ is demanding the judges recuse from all DHS-related criminal and civil cases.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly framed the filing as necessary to defend DOJ prosecutors and DHS, accusing the judges of violating the canons and displaying bias.
- Judge Patrick Schiltz, the focal judge in the Times story, issued a statement citing a February 2026 advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct and arguing that his comments on rule-of-law and judicial independence were permitted under ethical rules.
- A spokesperson for the Minnesota federal court said legal experts have confirmed the judges acted within applicable ethics rules in speaking to the newspaper.
- The article reiterates that in January 2026 Schiltz issued a ruling criticizing ICE for failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders and stating that ICE 'is not a law unto itself,' and he later told the Times the situation created 'a grave threat to the rule of law.'