Politics · United States · 9 hrs ago
Justice Department seeks to remove two Minnesota judges from immigration cases
A senior Justice Department official has asked two Minnesota federal judges to step aside from separate immigration cases.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward says comments the judges made to The New York Times about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement raise doubts about their impartiality.
One case concerns the administration’s effort to strip a Minnesota man of his US citizenship; the other involves a South African national charged with illegally voting in the 2024 election, who has pleaded not guilty.
The comments concerned Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year.
The Justice Department says the judges’ remarks could make them appear biased, while experts on judicial ethics expect the requests are unlikely to succeed.
The motions are part of the department’s campaign against judges it says treated the administration unfairly, and such requests are rare, especially when made by the government.
Judge Patrick Schiltz has scheduled a hearing on his motion for Nov.
23, while the next steps in Judge John Tunheim’s case are not stated.
The Justice Department has asked two Minnesota federal judges to step aside from separate immigration cases, saying their public remarks raise questions about their impartiality.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed the motions against Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim on Tuesday.
The judges had raised concerns in comments to The New York Times about the administration’s handling of immigration cases in Minnesota.
The cases involve a citizenship-denaturalization effort and charges against a South African national accused of illegally voting in the 2024 election.
Schiltz scheduled a hearing on the motion against him for Nov. 23.
- Who
- The Justice Department, through Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, is seeking the recusals of federal judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim.
- What
- It filed motions asking the judges to step aside from separate immigration cases, arguing their public remarks raise questions about impartiality.
- When
- The motions were filed Tuesday; the report was published Oct. 21, 2026.
- Where
- The cases are in Minnesota federal court.
- Why
- Woodward says the judges’ comments about immigration cases create an appearance of bias.
Justice Department
Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim
Reason for recusal
Justice Department
The judges’ comments to The New York Times raise questions about their impartiality in immigration-related cases.
Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim
Not stated; the articles do not report a response from either judge to the motions.
Meaning of remarks
Justice Department
The remarks suggest the judges may have taken sides on immigration enforcement or view charges as unwarranted.
Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim
The judges raised concerns about the administration’s handling of immigration cases in Minnesota.
The Trump administration carried out its immigration crackdown in Minnesota, called Operation Metro Surge.
Schiltz and Tunheim made comments to The New York Times about the administration’s handling of immigration cases in Minnesota.
Woodward filed separate motions seeking the recusal of Schiltz and Tunheim.
Schiltz scheduled a hearing on the motion against him.
- Judges named
- Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim
- Official who filed motions
- Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward
- Schiltz case
- The administration is seeking to strip a Minnesota man of U.S. citizenship.
- Tunheim case
- A South African national faces two charges of illegally voting in the 2024 election and has pleaded not guilty.
- Hearing date
- Nov. 23
3 sources
What people are saying
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: pursuing the largest denaturalization effort in Department history to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship
Absent recusal, the American people will reasonably question whether Judge Schiltz can be impartial regarding this important matter defending the integrity of American citizenship.
They're looking to essentially antagonize the judges and to square off against them in some manner,
Posts on X
Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary. Judge Schiltz’s and Judge Tunheim’s on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltz’s subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into