The Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against several Minnesota-based federal judges for “pander[ing]” to legacy media about ICE operations in the state.
“Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of Justice views as a clear violation of their ethical duties,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”
The complaint addressed to 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Steven Colloton takes to task a Sept. 17 Times article, in which Senior District Judge Patrick Schiltz and his colleagues bashed the Trump administration’s handling of cases involving its January 2026 deportation operations in the North Star State. The Times dutifully framed the judges’ remarks as a concerted effort by the government to “defy” federal judges, but even Schiltz conceded that “most, if not all” of the alleged noncompliance “was due to incompetence” and “not due to conscious defiance of orders.“
Equally notable about the Times article, however, is the apparent admission that these judges coordinated with one another on ICE-related cases being filed before them.
The Times noted how they “recalled seeking one another’s counsel, meeting regularly and consulting in running email threads” as the “number of cases ramped up.” While “some of their clerks made an informal spreadsheet showing whom to consult on particular legal questions,” some judges “built templates of legal orders so they could respond quickly to some of the detention issues that were arising again and again,” according to the outlet.
South Texas College of Law Houston Professor Josh Blackman further observed in Reason magazine how the judges seemingly admitted to eagerly clinging to their electronic devices, ready to respond to any potential petitions contesting the government’s operations. When it came to the DOJ’s “ask[ing] for an immediate ruling on an arrest warrant,” however, Blackman noted how “Judge Schiltz said it would have to wait till next week after he could consult with his colleagues.”
“You see District Court judges are omnipotent and agile, unless they need to first convene in panels to decide how to deal with Trump stuff,” Blackman surmised.
Citing Schiltz and Co.’s comments to the Times, the DOJ argued in its complaint that judges “are ethically prohibited from commenting publicly on cases pending in any court and making political or policy statements concerning matters that arc or have been before them.” The agency went on to highlight numerous provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges that it claimed these judges violated with their comments to the Times.
“DHS frequently has cases pending in the District of Minnesota, including immigration cases before Judge Schiltz and Judge [John] Tunheim. These judges should be ordered to recuse from any matters involving DHS because the public reasonably questions their impartiality in cases involving immigration,” the complaint reads.
The Justice Department additionally requested that the 8th Circuit’s Judicial Council launch an investigation “into the improper conduct by judges in the District of Minnesota who ‘covet publicity’ rather than adhering to the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies,” and that a special committee be appointed to probe the alleged “misconduct.”
.jpg){kind=link}