The Department of Justice filed judicial misconduct complaints Wednesday against most of Minnesota’s active federal judges, accusing them of displaying partisan bias through recent public comments about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in the state. The complaints, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, call for the judges to recuse themselves from all current and future cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.
The controversy centers on a September New York Times article in which seven Minnesota federal judges—appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents—discussed their experiences handling a high volume of immigration-related cases during last winter's Operation Metro Surge. This enforcement effort led to thousands of arrests and an influx of litigation, including lawsuits from detained migrants and prosecutions of protesters. The judges spoke openly about the strain the surge placed on the courts and alleged that government agencies failed to comply with numerous court orders.
Among those quoted were Patrick J. Schiltz, a judge nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, who characterized the government’s failure to follow court orders as a "grave threat to the rule of law," though he attributed many lapses to incompetence rather than malice. John R. Tunheim, appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton, stated that many detainees arrested did not seem to pose immediate threats. Nancy E. Brasel, a Trump appointee, defended the judiciary's right to speak publicly on matters of judicial independence.
Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that the judges’ comments violated the judicial code of conduct by expressing overt political views and addressing pending cases. He described their participation in the media as evidence of bias against immigration authorities and said such public remarks undermine impartiality in ongoing litigation. The complaint was signed by top Justice Department officials and submitted to the chief judge of the 8th Circuit, Steven Colloton.
The judges and their supporters countered that their remarks fell within ethical guidelines. Schiltz, speaking Wednesday, cited a recent advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct allowing federal judges to advocate for the rule of law and judicial independence. Brasel similarly emphasized the importance of speaking out to uphold judicial integrity. The news outlet that published the original interviews defended the reporting as essential to democratic accountability and public awareness.
The Department of Justice’s move marks a significant escalation in tensions between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, which has repeatedly ruled against key policy initiatives in immigration and other areas. These clashes have drawn rare public rebukes from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has called for an end to personal attacks on judges.
Blanche acknowledged the unusual nature of the complaint but expressed a conviction that the department must respond when judges refuse to adhere to legal standards. He and other administration officials have previously referred to some judges as “rogue” or “activist” for restraining government actions, though he insisted that his public criticisms do not violate judicial ethics.
Similar ethics complaints against judges in Washington, D.C., and a lawsuit targeting a Maryland court order related to immigration enforcement have been dismissed, highlighting ongoing legal and institutional friction over the judiciary’s role in immigration policy enforcement amid the Trump administration’s aggressive agenda.