Minnesota Federal Judges Hit With Misconduct Complaint By Justice Department

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday (September 30) against all but one of Minnesota's active federal judges, citing interviews they gave to The New York Times that criticized the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in the state. The DOJ has formally asked the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to force the recusal of the seven judges who spoke with the newspaper from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The complaint alleges that the judges, who were appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, violated judicial ethics by publicly discussing the impact of increased immigration enforcement during last winter’s Operation Metro Surge. This operation led to thousands of arrests in the Twin Cities area. The DOJ’s filing accuses the judges of being “improper and unethical” in their conduct and claims their comments showed "obvious bias," undermining public confidence in an impartial judiciary.

Attorney General Todd Blanche stated, “Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota,” and added that the department must "defend not only our prosecutors, but also DHS" from perceived judicial bias. The complaint escalates ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, as judges have previously halted administration priorities and dismissed high-profile prosecutions, often criticizing government lawyers for failing to comply with court orders.

One of the judges at the center of the story, Patrick Schiltz—a George W. Bush appointee—told The New York Times that the federal government’s actions “created a grave threat to the rule of law,” but he declined to discuss ongoing cases. Schiltz also stated that his comments were consistent with ethical rules, and referenced a February advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct, which said federal judges may speak on core judiciary matters such as the rule of law and judicial independence. In a statement, the Minnesota court spokesperson said legal experts have confirmed that the judges acted “well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges.”

The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Minnesota’s federal judiciary. The case is expected to test the boundaries of judicial speech and could have implications for how judges interact with the media in the future.

It remains to be seen whether the judges will be forced to recuse themselves from DHS-related cases or whether the 8th Circuit will find that their comments were within ethical limits. Updates are expected as the complaint progresses through the appeals court system.