DOJ files misconduct complaint against Minnesota federal judges over NYT comments

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on September 30, 2026, against several District of Minnesota judges for comments made to the media about a New York Times story on immigration enforcement.

The complaint, which names Judges Patrick J. Schiltz, John R. Tunheim and other unnamed jurists, alleges they breached the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by publicly discussing pending cases and making policy statements about the government’s immigration actions.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the judges’ statements "undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary" and requested that they be recused from any matters involving the Department of Homeland Security. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter added that the department is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to investigate the alleged violations.

“Judges who covet publicity rather than follow the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies undermine the public’s confidence in an impartial jury,” McCotter said.

In response, Judge Schiltz told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he acted “well within the ethical rules” for federal judges, citing an advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct that permits judges to “speak and write on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.” A spokesperson for the Minnesota federal courts echoed that judges acted within their allowed capacity.

The controversy stems from a New York Times article titled “Trump’s Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns,” which quoted seven Minnesota judges on Operation Metro Surge, a large‑scale roundup of illegal aliens that began in December 2025 and generated hundreds of habeas corpus petitions. The DOJ argues that commenting on those ongoing cases violates ethical prohibitions on public discussion of pending matters.

Since the Times piece appeared, Judge Tunheim has reportedly been assigned six additional habeas cases, while Judge Schiltz has released 17 ICE detainees and denied only two habeas petitions, figures the complaint highlights as evidence of the judges’ active involvement in immigration litigation.

The complaint now moves to the Eighth Circuit, which will decide whether disciplinary action, including potential recusal orders, is warranted. The outcome could set a precedent for how aggressively the Justice Department enforces judicial conduct rules and may influence how federal judges engage with the press on policy‑related issues.