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

The Department of Justice is actively seeking to disqualify two federal judges from presiding over specific immigration cases, citing their recent public criticism of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies.

Judge Patrick Schiltz, who is overseeing the denaturalization of a Somali-born man convicted of supporting al-Shabaab, and Judge John Tunheim, who is presiding over a South African national accused of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and voting illegally, are the targets of the DOJ's recusal motions.

The administration argues that the judges' participation in a September New York Times report on Operation Metro Surge has cast doubt on their ability to remain impartial in these matters.

Judges' public comments

The controversy stems from a September report in which Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the Times about the administration's Operation Metro Surge.

Schiltz described the administration's handling of the operation as creating a "grave threat to the rule of law" during a roughly 90-minute interview.

Tunheim suggested that agents carrying out the crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.

The judges had been coordinating through email threads and an informal spreadsheet to handle the flood of cases, though Chief Judge Eric Tostrud stated each judge made independent decisions on the merits.

DOJ's recusal arguments

In a statement posted to X, the Justice Department asserted that "impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary" and that the judges' on-the-record participation in the partisan article "unquestionably calls into doubt" their ability to be fair.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote that a judge who has "publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement" cannot preside over a case involving the administration's denaturalization efforts.

Judges' defense

Schiltz declined to comment on the new recusal effort when reached by Fox News Digital, but he previously argued there was no basis for him to step aside.

He pointed out that the DOJ had not formally asked him to recuse and stated that he had not commented on the merits of any particular case.

Tunheim did not respond to a request for comment.

Legal experts weigh in

Charles 'Cully' Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described the judges' actions as "extraordinarily imprudent" and said they had violated a fundamental rule of judicial conduct.

Stimson stated that if the New York Times interviews were the only facts at issue, he would recommend recusal from the specific cases in question.

Next steps

If either judge denies the DOJ's recusal motions, the government could seek review from the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel would determine whether the legal standard for recusal has been met.

A DOJ spokesperson did not answer questions about whether the department would appeal if the judges deny the motions.