Washington — A senior Justice Department official is seeking to remove two Minnesota federal judges from separate cases, arguing that remarks they made to The New York Times about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in the state raise questions about their impartiality.
The motions target Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim and represent a further escalation in the Justice Department’s campaign against judges it accuses of treating the Trump administration unfairly. Both filings were submitted by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the department’s third-highest-ranking official.
Over the weekend, Woodward also asked that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes be removed from a Washington, D.C., case concerning President Trump’s effort to transform a historic public golf course in the capital. Reyes rejected the Justice Department’s effort Sunday, accusing the department of using “selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion.”
Woodward filed the requests involving Schiltz and Tunheim separately on Tuesday. Schiltz is presiding over a case in which the Trump administration is attempting to revoke the U.S. citizenship of a Minnesota man. Tunheim is handling a separate case involving a South African national charged twice with illegally voting in the 2024 election. She has pleaded not guilty.
Schiltz has set a Nov. 23 hearing on the motion seeking his recusal. Under ethics rules, judges are barred from publicly commenting on cases that remain pending before them.
The Justice Department’s arguments center on comments Schiltz and Tunheim gave The New York Times for an article published last month. In their remarks, both judges expressed concerns about the administration’s handling of cases arising from its immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year, known as Operation Metro Surge.
Woodward argued in both filings that the judges’ comments created an appearance of bias and cast doubt on whether they could fairly oversee the cases.
“A judge who has publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement cannot then preside over a case concerning one of the Justice Department’s key immigration initiatives: pursuing the largest denaturalization effort in Department history to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship,” Woodward wrote in the motion against Schiltz. “Absent recusal, the American people will reasonably question whether Judge Schiltz can be impartial regarding this important matter defending the integrity of American citizenship.”
In a separate filing, Woodward argued that Tunheim’s comments to the Times indicated he might consider the charges against the South African defendant unjustified.
“To Judge Tunheim, the ‘rule of law’ apparently means ignoring the law when it comes to illegal aliens who have broken the law,” Woodward wrote.
The associate attorney general said the judges’ statements and their participation in the Times article “give rise to the appearance of bias in immigration-related cases” and therefore justify their removal. Woodward was the only government attorney to sign the motions.
What comes next
Judicial ethics experts say the Trump administration is unlikely to succeed in removing Schiltz or Tunheim from the cases. Even so, such recusal motions are unusual, particularly when they are brought by the government.
“They’re looking to essentially antagonize the judges and to square off against them in some manner,” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University Bloomington law professor who specializes in judicial ethics and conduct.
When the Justice Department believes a judge should step aside, government lawyers typically might contact the judge privately and explain why they believe recusal is appropriate, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who has written extensively about judicial ethics.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Trump Women Reveal Brutal Feelings About Kimberly Guilfoyle
But with the efforts involving Schiltz and Tunheim, not only did the Justice Department file their motions on the public dockets, it also promoted them on social media.
“It’s obvious DOJ has decided that its game plan is to challenge the fairness of the judges as a way of undermining judicial authority in the eyes of the public,” Gillers said.
He described the filings as “performative,” saying the Justice Department “wants to publicize them to discourage public confidence in what the courts are doing when they rule against the administration.”
The motions are the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration aimed at judges who have issued rulings against it. Last month, the Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against all but one of Minnesota’s federal judges, including Schiltz and Tunheim, citing the Times article. The department also filed ethics complaints against Reyes and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg; the complaint against Boasberg was later dismissed.
The Justice Department also sued all 15 of the federal judges in Maryland over a standing order that temporarily prevents the immediate removal of immigrants who are challenging deportation orders. A Virginia judge dismissed the lawsuit, and the Justice Department has appealed that ruling.
Mr. Trump and senior administration officials have likewise publicly insulted judges, including named Supreme Court justices, and called for their impeachments.
“This is just a perpetuation of the project,” Geyh said. “It’s part of the network of efforts to delegitimize the judges involved, make them look partisan, make them look biased as a way to quiet them and diminish the check from the judiciary.”
Amid rising tensions between the federal judiciary and Trump administration, Schiltz and Tunheim are not the only federal judges who have raised concerns about what they say is the government’s disregard of court orders. Others have pushed back against the harsh rhetoric from the president and top administration officials.
The Judicial Conference, the policy-making body for the federal courts, issued an advisory opinion in February stating that ethics principles “permit judges to speak or write about the independence of the judiciary, or advocate for the rule of law in general, including why both values are crucial to our system of government.”
Additionally, the Judicial Conference said its Committee on Codes of Conduct believes there is “room, in at least some circumstances, for the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law, whether or not they rise to the level of persecution.”
“If you’re talking generally about the concerns with the rule of law as a consequence of the general pattern of conduct the Department of Justice is exhibiting, it’s the opposite of bias,” Geyh said. “It is them really doing what they need to do to protect the rule of law.”
