DOJ Moves To Remove Two Minnesota Judges From Immigration Cases

The Justice Department submitted motions to disqualify two federal judges in Minnesota from distinct immigration proceedings. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodard singled out U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim due to their public comments. The move aims to stop these judges from overseeing cases involving the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Official motions were filed on Tuesday to disqualify both judges from specific legal battles. One case involves stripping a Minnesota man of his citizenship. A separate matter involves a South African woman charged with casting an illegal ballot during the 2024 election. The government argues these judges have already formed opinions that block fair trials.

Questions on Judicial Impartiality

The Justice Department contends that recent comments suggest the judges cannot be neutral. They point to remarks made to the New York Times in September. The department wrote that impartiality is vital for public trust in the courts. “Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary,” the DOJ wrote Wednesday.

Judge Schiltz, appointed by former President George W. Bush, faced criticism after calling administration actions “a grave threat to the rule of law.” He previously worked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Tunheim, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, also drew heat for his views on arrests. “They weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street,” Tunheim told the New York Times.

Woodard argued that a judge who takes a side on immigration cannot lead a case on citizenship. He wrote that Schiltz’s public stance calls his impartiality into doubt. The filing states that allowing Schiltz to stay would make Americans question the fairness of the proceedings. The department made a similar claim against Tunheim regarding the charges against the South African defendant.

Escalating Tensions With the Courts

This filing marks another clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary. For nearly two years, the administration has fought judges who block or slow its policies. Now it is taking more aggressive steps to remove judges and investigate their conduct. Mike Davis, a conservative legal activist, said the DOJ is confronting these disputes without fear. “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 told the Washington Examiner.

The department filed a complaint on September 30 with the 8th Circuit regarding the Minnesota judges. That complaint sought their removal and an investigation into their conduct. Judges on the 8th Circuit will now decide if the district judges violated ethical rules. The Supreme Court has granted the administration relief in many emergency cases, but lower courts still oversee many lawsuits.

The 8th Circuit judges will determine if recusals are warranted based on the complaint. Their task is determining whether the district judges exceeded their authority by shifting from oversight to partisan obstruction. The administration argues that winning an appeal does not fix the time lost while a policy is blocked. They say the delay itself hurts the president’s ability to enforce the law.

Judge Schiltz has defended his comments, arguing he spoke out about threats to judicial independence. The outcome of these motions will set a precedent for how the government handles judges it views as biased. The next step is a ruling by the 8th Circuit on whether these judges should step aside.