In Minnesota, a federal judge has decisively dismissed the Trump administration’s attempt to have him step down from an immigration-related case.

The case involves petitioner Tong X., who successfully persuaded U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, appointed by President Joe Biden, to grant his immediate release through a habeas corpus petition.

Judge Bryan issued the release order in late February, just about a week after attorneys for the Laos national submitted the initial petition. The case, however, remains unresolved. The delay is due to the government’s non-compliance with court directives to return all of Tong X.’s property and to refrain from imposing “any new or additional conditions” on his release.

On Monday, Judge Bryan scheduled a hearing to address the outstanding issues concerning the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) failure to adhere to these orders, followed by a contempt hearing.

Following these developments, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), representing DHS, filed a motion on Thursday to disqualify Judge Bryan. They cited his wife’s current role as the solicitor general for the state of Minnesota as the basis for their request.

The argument presented by the government is that Judge Bryan’s marriage to Minnesota Solicitor General Elizabeth Kramer could pose a conflict of interest, given her involvement in representing the state in a lawsuit against “Operation Metro Surge.”

In December 2025, thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began to sweep the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul for immigrants in the massive roundup. Later, the Trump administration boasted this controversial campaign was “the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out.”

Minnesota sued over the enforcement operation in early January.

Bryan, for his part, cited the timelines as reason enough to deny the government’s motion to disqualify him from the habeas case.

“Respondents’ counsel did not promptly bring this motion,” the order reads. “On February 23, 2026, the Court granted Tong X.’s unopposed Petition. The motion does not satisfy the timing requirements because it was after the Court ordered relief and well after Respondents’ counsel had knowledge of the undersigned’s marriage to General Kramer.”

The court says the matter of promptness is “especially true” in the present because DHS did not even bother to oppose – or even respond to – the original habeas petition until it was too late.

From the order, at length:

None of the specific facts in this Petition was ever contested. As it stands, the only disputed issue in this matter is whether Respondents can provide documentation to show that Petitioner was indeed “released from custody with all of his property,” as represented (without support) by Respondents.  Given clear Eighth Circuit authority, the Court is compelled to deny the motion.

The judge puts a fine point on the matter of timeliness in two separate footnotes where he explains how the DOJ attorneys involved in the case were well aware of his marriage for quite some time.

“[T]he undersigned and Respondents’ counsel have had more than one casual conversation in which they spoke about General Kramer several months before March 6, 2026,” one footnote reads. “In addition, the undersigned has made this relationship clear in other filings when recusing from assigned cases involving the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office.”

The second footnote suggests the DOJ is perhaps being intentionally obtuse about the judge’s wife – but decides against endorsing such an allegation against the government’s counsel outright.

“Again, the Court presumes Respondents’ counsel did not mean to imply that he only just learned of the undersigned’s marriage to General Kramer on March 6, 2026,” the second footnote reads. “Such an implication would be false.”

At one point, the DOJ argued recusal was necessary due to “the substance and timing of this motion,” but apparently offered little in the way of explanation. The judge rubbishes this argument as “imprecise.”

“[W]ithout at least some explanation to support this self-serving conclusory statement, does not establish the impossibility required to be excepted from the otherwise mandatory meet-and-confer rule,” Bryan chides.

In the order, Bryan also says the DOJ forfeited the basic ability to request for disqualification in the first place by failing to discuss the matter with the petitioner’s own counsel first. This is another procedural bar based on the local rules in the Minnesota federal court system.

Additionally, the order gets close to the merits – by finding the Trump administration’s request is “lacking merit.”

Again, the order, at length:

Respondents’ counsel lists facts in this case that are characterized as similar to those included in the complaint in State of Minnesota v. Noem, et al. However, all of the cited facts are general background facts regarding Operation Metro Surge that have not been disputed by Respondents in any of the roughly 1,000 habeas cases filed in this District, or in any of the nearly 100 habeas cases assigned to the undersigned, since December 1, 2025…Respondents’ counsel makes no argument or explanation how the only remaining issue in this matter—the provision of documentation on Respondents’ return of Petitioner’s property to Petitioner—possibly gives rise to the appearance of a conflict.

The order goes on to explain how the allegations in Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS “are fundamentally different from those in a habeas proceeding.”

“Such allegations have no bearing on the subject of a habeas petition: the lawfulness of a petitioner’s detention,” Bryan concludes. “Accordingly, no reasonable person could believe that marriage to General Kramer—who represents the State of Minnesota in its suit about federalism in relation to Operation Metro Surge— affects the undersigned’s view of habeas relief and documentation of Respondents’ return of Petitioner’s property.”