DOJ Moves To Remove Two Minnesota Judges From Immigration Cases

The Justice Department is asking federal courts to remove two Minnesota judges from immigration cases. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodard filed these motions on Tuesday. Citing remarks made to the New York Times, the department contends that the judges are incapable of fairness. These remarks occurred in September and touched on immigration enforcement actions.

The two judges involved are Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. They are currently overseeing a case to strip a Minnesota man of his citizenship. They also handle a prosecution against a South African woman for alleged illegal voting. The DOJ claims the judges have already formed opinions on the administration’s policies.

According to the Washington Examiner, the department wrote that impartiality is key to public trust. According to the filing, “Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary”. The DOJ argues that Schiltz and Tunheim cannot oversee these specific efforts. They say the judges’ public comments cast doubt on their ability to remain neutral.

Specific Claims About Judicial Conduct

The motions target Judge Schiltz first. He is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Last winter, he described the administration’s actions as “a grave threat to the rule of law.” He formerly served as a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Woodard wrote that a judge who takes sides on immigration cannot preside over denaturalization cases.

The filing argues that Schiltz has publicly taken a position on a political issue. Woodard declared, “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”. The department believes the American people will question his fairness if he stays on the case.

Judge Tunheim faces similar scrutiny. He was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. He told the New York Times that the arrests were not of dangerous criminals. “They weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street,” Tunheim told the New York Times. The DOJ says this comment suggests he views the charges against the defendant as unwarranted.

Legal Battle Over Recusal

This move marks another clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary. The administration has long argued that judges are slowing down its agenda. Now they are asking courts to remove judges and investigate their conduct. The Supreme Court has granted relief in many emergency applications recently. However, lower court judges still oversee many of these lawsuits.

Mike Davis, a conservative legal activist, told the Washington Examiner that the DOJ is not backing down. “President Trump has a bold, fearless, and very strong team at the Justice Department, and they’re not going to be cowed by these Democrat activist judges,” he said. Davis claims the administration is defending the separation of powers and the president’s authority.

The department filed a complaint with the 8th Circuit on September 30. This complaint seeks to remove the judges and investigate their conduct. Judges on the 8th Circuit will decide if the district judges violated judicial rules. They will also determine if recusals are warranted in these specific cases.