The Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against Minnesota judges who gave New York Times interviews on immigration enforcement, calling the comments a clear ethics breach.
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Sept. 30 that the Department of Justice has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against federal judges in Minnesota who sat for interviews with The New York Times about a high-profile immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities. The complaint went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and asks the court to appoint a special committee to investigate.
Blanche said the interviews were a clear violation of the judges’ ethical duties. DOJ also asked that the judges recuse themselves from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security while the matter is pending, citing what it called obvious bias against DHS and immigration authorities.
Alpha News reported that the complaint targets all but one active judge on the District of Minnesota bench and was signed by senior DOJ officials Trent McCotter and Stanley Woodward. The filing followed a Sept. 17 New York Times piece built on interviews with seven Minnesota judges, including a 90-minute sit-down with U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz.
The enforcement surge that drew the coverage ran from December 2025 into the middle of February 2026. Blanche argued the judges’ public comments crossed into partisan territory and touched active matters still before the courts.
At a press conference, Blanche described the judges’ decision to grant the interviews as particularly egregious. He said their overtly political comments amount to a flagrant violation of the code of judicial conduct, in the department’s view, and show obvious bias against DHS.
“The comments aren’t even true and [are] blatantly false,” Blanche said, according to the reporting on his remarks. He recounted Schiltz telling the Times that the Trump administration had a “disregard for court orders,” that the disregard “clogged his courthouse to a near standstill, contributing to rising tensions” among protesters in Minneapolis, and that “the lack of resources led to a result that should have been anticipated, and that threatened the foundations of the legal system.”
Reuters reported that Blanche framed the media comments as a clear violation of ethical duties and that the complaint itself labeled the judges’ conduct particularly egregious. The wire service also noted DOJ’s push for recusal from DHS-related cases over the alleged bias.
That demand lands in a wider climate of friction between the executive branch and parts of the federal bench. DHS has already warned sanctuary judges after other courts confronted conduct that undercut immigration enforcement.
Blanche’s message was direct: judges do not get a free pass to litigate policy fights in the press while cases are live.
The Washington Examiner reported that the complaint is a novel filing aimed at nearly the entire active federal district court bench in Minnesota. Blanche said it concerns the judges’ interviews about the administration’s immigration operations and accused them of discussing pending cases while displaying bias against DHS.
DOJ wants those judges off civil and criminal matters involving the department until the Eighth Circuit sorts out the misconduct claim. The ask is not a side note. It goes to whether the public can trust the court to hear enforcement cases with a clean slate.
Federal judges have repeatedly stepped into high-stakes fights with the White House in recent months. Obama- and Biden-appointed judges halted White House ballroom work in one such clash, underscoring how quickly courtroom orders become national political flashpoints.
In Minnesota, the complaint treats the Times interviews as more than commentary. It treats them as conduct that compromises the appearance of impartiality on immigration dockets.
Just the News reported that U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz and Judge John Tunheim were specifically cited for comments tied to the Minneapolis deportation surge. The outlet quoted the complaint’s bottom line on recusal: “These judges should be ordered to recuse from any matters involving DHS because the public reasonably questions their impartiality in cases involving immigration.”
DOJ alleged Schiltz’s commentary included inappropriately partisan remarks. The department is not arguing judges must stay silent forever. It is arguing they cannot use the national press to attack enforcement policy while related cases are still moving through their own courthouse.
Other federal judges have issued orders in politically charged institutional fights this year, from cultural landmarks to press access. One judge required 30 days’ notice before any Kennedy Center demolition, another reminder that the bench keeps inserting itself into executive and cultural disputes.
Schiltz rejected the ethics charge. He told The Epoch Times he stayed inside the rules.
“As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, I was acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times.”
He pointed to a February advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct. That opinion, he said, allows federal judges to “speak and draft on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.”
“That is exactly what I did.”
DOJ’s filing does not accept that framing. Blanche called the comments false and political, not a dry defense of institutional independence.
Breitbart reported that the complaint targets Schiltz, a Bush appointee, and Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, for improper political comments on pending matters. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter put the institutional stakes in plain terms.
“Judges who covet publicity undermine public confidence in the rule of law.”
Blanche added, “We have no choice but to act.” DOJ is seeking both an investigation into the publicity-seeking conduct and recusal from DHS and ICE cases.
The same courts that police the executive branch must also police their own appearance of neutrality. When judges give extended interviews that blast live enforcement operations, taxpayers and agents in the field are entitled to ask whether the next DHS case starts on a level field.
Press fights with the White House have already pulled judges into the middle of media access disputes. A Trump-appointed judge ordered credentials restored for several outlets, another sign of how quickly the judiciary becomes a player in political combat rather than a quiet referee.
Here the roles reverse. The Justice Department is the complainant, the Eighth Circuit is the forum, and the Minnesota district bench is the subject of the ethics claim.
The complaint asks the Eighth Circuit to appoint a special committee “to investigate this misconduct.” It also seeks interim recusals from all DHS matters so the alleged bias does not shape outcomes while the review runs.
No public ruling on the special committee or the recusal request appeared in the available accounts as of Blanche’s Sept. 30 statement. The record so far is the filing itself, the Times interviews that triggered it, and the competing claims about what the judicial code allows.
Schiltz says he was defending the rule of law. DOJ says he and his colleagues ran an overtly political press tour that violates the code, misstates facts, and leaves the public doubting their impartiality on immigration cases. Those two stories cannot both be right in full. The Eighth Circuit now has to sort the ethics question the department put on its desk.
Judges who want the public to respect court orders should not treat national newspapers as a second docket for settling scores with immigration agencies.