DOJ moves to boot two federal judges from immigration cases over remarks to media: 'Extraordinarily imprudent'

Two Minnesota federal judges who took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the Trump administrations immigration crackdown to the New York Times are now fighting the administrations efforts to disqualify them from cases involving immigration enforcement.

One of those judges, Patrick Schiltz, is overseeing the Justice Departments effort to strip U. S. citizenship from Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al- Shabaab. The other, John Tunheim, is presiding over the prosecution of a South African national accused of falsely claiming U. S. citizenship and illegally voting in the 2024 election. The Justice Department filed separate motions asking Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves, arguing that their participation in the New York Times report criticizing President Donald Trump's has raised questions about whether they can fairly preside over the cases.

"Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nations judiciary," the Justice Department said in a statement posted to X this week. "Judge Schiltzs and Judge Tunheims on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltzs subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases."

The Justice Department's formal recusal demand follows reporting by Fox News Digital last month detailing unusual behind-the-scenes coordination among Minnesota's federal bench as judges confronted a massive influx of immigration cases stemming from the administration's enforcement operation. The report came after Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the Times in September about Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz sat for a roughly 90- minute interview during which he described the administration's handling of the operation as having created a "grave threat to the rule of law," while Tunheim suggested to the Times that agents carrying out the administration's immigration crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.

DOJ had already raised the prospect that judges who publicly discussed the administration's immigration cases might need to step aside when the Times report was released in September. Last month, DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota judges who participated in the Times report, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate. Attorney General Todd Blanche said their conduct had "undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota."

"It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration's policies rather than ruling from the bench," a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in September. "Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward."

'WORST OF THE WORST' JUDGES ARE SABOTAGING TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION AGENDA, TOP DHS OFFICIAL SAYS

The Times report in question revealed that Schiltz, Tun