The Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against federal judges in Minnesota Wednesday, asking that they be barred from hearing any more immigration cases after most of them participated in a press interview where they complained about President Trump’s policies and compared them to China or North Korea.
Justice Department leaders said that The New York Times article, which reported speaking with seven judges, showed the judges harbor animosity toward the Department of Homeland Security, undermining the impartiality of the federal court in Minnesota.
In the article, the judges questioned the wisdom of Homeland Security’s arrests and said the Justice Department was incompetent in handling the deluge of legal cases that flowed from the immigration enforcement crackdown in the Minneapolis area earlier this year.
People were interested in these podcasts
“These judges should be ordered to recuse from any matters involving DHS because the public reasonably questions their impartiality in cases involving immigration,” acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in their formal complaint.
They also asked for an investigation into the judges themselves for putting a desire for publicity above their judicial duties.
The complaint was filed with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees the state and its judges.
Rebeccah Parks, a spokeswoman for the district judges, said in a statement that the comments for the article were “well within the ethical rules.”
She said the Committee on Codes of Conduct has specifically stated that judges may comment on “core judiciary matters,” including the rule of law and judicial independence.
“Our judges acted within this capacity,” she said.
Filing the complaint marks an escalation by the Justice Department in a battle that has lasted for most of this year.
Minnesota’s federal judges were particularly harsh in rulings against the Trump administration amid the surge, ordering the release of migrants who had been arrested and issuing sharp rebukes when the government did not move quickly to comply.
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz said in one ruling that it was “beyond the pale” that the administration surged Homeland Security personnel to make arrests but did not prepare the U.S. attorney’s office to handle the tsunami of litigation that resulted. Judge Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, was the district’s chief judge at the time before taking senior status in August.
Judge Schiltz was the primary voice in the article, sitting for a 90-minute interview that helped prompt the Justice Department’s complaint.
He told the newspaper the administration had a “disregard” for court orders, which helped fuel tensions in the city as unruly protesters clashed with aggressive Homeland Security agents. He called the administration’s actions “a grave threat to the rule of law.”
Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, also agreed to speak on the record. He questioned the types of people being arrested, echoing complaints of immigrant rights activists that agents “weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the streets.”
The article said other judges also spoke but did so on the condition of not being named.
Mr. McCotter said Minnesota’s judges are bound by rules that urge them not to speak to the press, even to make “seemingly innocuous statements.” The 8th Circuit has said judges “must be above the fray, not become an advocate in it.”
The federal district court has seven slots, six of which are filled. Judge Schiltz had occupied the seventh until he took senior status this summer.
Of the six active regular judges, two were appointed by Mr. Trump and four by President Biden.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to get involved in the Minnesota judges’ situation as well.
After similar criticism from federal judges last year, the Judicial Conference, the governing body for federal judges headed by the chief justice, issued an opinion urging federal jurists to be more circumspect when speaking to the press.
The opinion said judges can still speak on issues of history and operation of courts but must be wary of their “tone, context and form.” Immigration was not one of the areas listed as acceptable for judges to speak on.
“Federal judges should be issuing opinions and orders in accordance with the law, not giving quotes based on their personal views to The New York Times,” Mr. Grassley said. “I hope the chief justice addresses this issue.”
The new Justice Department complaint is part of an intense tug-of-war between the Trump administration and the broader community of federal judges who have blocked the president from carrying out his plans, particularly on immigration.
The Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge in Washington, after he was reported to have suggested in a conference of judges that he feared Mr. Trump would defy the courts. He later initiated contempt proceedings against the Trump administration, citing violations of court orders.
That complaint was dismissed by an appeals court, which said it was not proved that Judge Boasberg made the comments, and even if he did, the comments were within his purview to discuss privately judicial independence and relations with other branches of government.
Justice Department attorneys have also sought to boot federal judges from cases in Georgia, the District and Washington state.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.