The Justice Department on Wednesday accused two of Minnesota’s federal judges of engaging in misconduct for comments made to The New York Times about how their court handled the administration’s immigration surge in Minneapolis this winter.
In a six-page complaint filed with the Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit, which includes the Minnesota district, the department alleged that the judges’ comments violated ethics rules that limit what judges are allowed to say publicly, particularly on pending cases. It singles out Judge Patrick J. Schiltz and Judge John R. Tunheim, both of whom were quoted in the Times article.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of “obvious bias” for giving interviews to The Times about the Trump administration’s immigration surge in Minnesota this winter. Judge Schiltz told The Times that the administration’s actions had “created a grave threat to the rule of law.” Mr. Blanche called those comments “overtly political.”
The article, which appeared on Sept. 17, drew on interviews that took place the previous month with all but one of the judges who were active during the weeks when Operation Metro Surge put the Twin Cities, as well as the court, under tremendous pressure. The judges described the challenges they faced when their dockets were swamped with petitions from detainees, criminal cases against protesters and civil cases challenging the administration’s entire approach.
The Justice Department urged a judicial investigation into four other federal judges in Minnesota who spoke to The Times. The department requested that Judge Schiltz and Judge Tunheim be ordered to recuse themselves from matters involving the Department of Homeland Security.
In a statement on Wednesday, Judge Schiltz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said he was “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to The New York Times.” He cited an opinion issued this year by a judicial committee, advising that judges are allowed to speak and write on “core judiciary matters,” including the rule of law and judicial independence.
“That is exactly what I did,” he said.
Judge Tunheim, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, declined to comment.
Complaints about judicial misconduct are considered by other judges. The circuit’s chief judge can choose to dismiss the complaint or appoint a committee to investigate further. If an investigative committee is formed, that group can recommend that a judge be censured or impose other punishments.
In cases of extreme misconduct, the Judicial Council, the judiciary’s internal governing body, can refer a judge to Congress for impeachment. Ultimately, federal judges are appointed for life and can be ousted only by Congress.
Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge who consults with judges on ethics questions, said he did not believe the judges had engaged in misconduct. The judges’ comments in the article, he added, “described breaches of professional obligations by government lawyers” and “appear to have been directed to matters within their purview as judges rather than broader policy questions.”
A spokesman for The Times said, “Reporting by The New York Times on concerns among federal judges about the conduct of the Justice Department highlights the importance of public officials stepping up to shed light on governmental actions.”
“Seeking to punish or silence those who speak up to journalists about any administration’s agenda undercuts democratic accountability and the public’s right to know,” added the spokesman, Charlie Stadtlander.
The complaint escalates the long-simmering clash between the Trump administration and the district’s bench, which began when federal immigration agents poured into the Twin Cities last winter. It was aggravated by the killing of two Americans by federal agents, and pressure from the Justice Department to issue a warrant for the arrest of Don Lemon, the former cable news anchor.
In January, Judge Schiltz compiled a list of nearly 100 court orders that he said the Trump administration had violated in its effort to sweep up and deport hundreds of undocumented immigrants, including some who had lived in the United States for years. The Minnesota court was inundated with petitions from detainees asking the court to review the legality of their detention. During the first three months of 2025, the court fielded two of those petitions. Over the same period in 2026, it received 1,116 of them.
The Eighth Circuit was one of the few appeals courts to eventually rule in favor of the administration on the legality of its indefinite detention policy. That ruling has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is not the first time that the administration has tried to wield the judiciary’s internal disciplinary process against judges who have issued unfavorable rulings. The Justice Department also filed an ethics complaint against Judge James E. Boasberg over comments it claimed he made at a private meeting of judges. That complaint was dismissed earlier this year.
On Wednesday, Mr. Blanche drew a distinction between the criticism leveled against his department by judges and the public criticism he has leveled against them. He noted that he is not a judge and not bound by judicial ethics.
He then seemed to acknowledge the Justice Department had in fact violated orders from the Minnesota judges but said the orders should not have been issued in the first place.
“I’m allowed to get really fired up when, for example, judges in Minnesota complain about us violating court orders but the reason why, that we are, quote, violating court orders is because these judges are violating Supreme Court law, OK, in allowing these cases to be filed,” he said, apparently referring to a case that clarifies which courts have jurisdiction to hear detention challenges.
After sharply criticizing the Minnesota judges on Wednesday, Mr. Blanche added that the department has “total respect for the judiciary. There’s not a prosecutor in this country that should ever, ever violate a court order.”
Last year, Mr. Blanche railed against what he called “rogue judges” who were unfair to the administration.
“It’s a war, man,” Mr. Blanche said at a public event with conservative lawyers. “They have a robe on, but they are more political or certainly as political as the most liberal governor,” he said, adding, “There’s a group of judges that are repeat players, and that’s obviously not by happenstance, that’s intentional.”
The post Justice Dept. Tries to Rebuke Federal Judges for Speaking to The Times appeared first on New York Times.
