The Justice Department on Wednesday filed a formal complaint accusing two federal judges in Minnesota of judicial misconduct related to their public comments on an immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis earlier this year. The complaint, submitted to the Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit, alleges that Judges Patrick J. Schiltz and John R. Tunheim violated judicial ethics rules by speaking publicly about matters before their court, particularly regarding cases related to the federal government’s immigration policies.
Attorney General Todd Blanche criticized the judges for showing what he described as “obvious bias” in interviews with The New York Times. Judge Schiltz had told the publication that the Trump administration’s immigration operation in Minnesota had “created a grave threat to the rule of law,” remarks Blanche termed “overtly political.” The article, published in September, drew from interviews with Minnesota judges who managed an influx of cases triggered by Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that prompted a dramatic rise in detainee petitions, civil rights claims, and criminal cases tied to protests and immigration enforcement.
In its complaint, the Justice Department called for a judicial inquiry into four additional judges who spoke to reporters. It also requested that Judges Schiltz and Tunheim be removed from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security, contending their public statements compromised their impartiality.
Judge Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, defended his remarks, saying he acted within the boundaries of judicial ethics as outlined in a recent committee opinion permitting judges to speak on core judicial issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence. Judge Tunheim, appointed by President Bill Clinton, declined to comment.
The complaint process involves review by other judges within the Eighth Circuit, whose chief judge may dismiss the complaint or appoint a committee to investigate. Potential outcomes can include censure or referral for impeachment, though federal judges serve lifetime appointments and can be removed only by Congress.
Legal experts have voiced differing views on the complaint. Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge who advises on judicial ethics, stated he did not believe the judges engaged in misconduct, noting their comments addressed professional concerns within their judicial role rather than political matters.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the Minnesota federal judiciary, which emerged last winter amid increased federal immigration enforcement efforts in the Twin Cities. The court was overwhelmed with requests from detainees challenging the legality of their detentions, with filings surging from just two in early 2025 to over a thousand by the same period in 2026. Judge Schiltz has previously criticized the administration for allegedly violating nearly 100 court orders as part of its deportation efforts.
The Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of the administration’s indefinite detention policy, a decision now under review by the Supreme Court. This latest complaint follows a similar attempt by the Justice Department to challenge another judge, James E. Boasberg, for critical comments, which was dismissed earlier this year.
At a Wednesday news briefing, Attorney General Blanche acknowledged federal violations of court orders but argued that such orders themselves conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. While sharply criticizing the judges, he also affirmed the department’s commitment to respecting judicial independence, stressing that prosecutors must not defy court rulings.
Blanche characterized the conflict as highly politicized, labeling some judges “rogue” and claiming that a segment of the judiciary acts with a political agenda comparable to that of elected officials. The escalating dispute underscores the broader friction between the Justice Department and parts of the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement and judicial oversight.