The Justice Department has taken the unusual step of filing an ethics complaint against two federal judges in Minnesota—one sitting and one retired—for their public comments to The New York Times about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in the state. The complaint, submitted to the Eighth Circuit's Judicial Council, accuses the judges of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and seeks their recusal from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.
The judges in question are Patrick Schiltz, appointed by George W. Bush, and John Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee. Their remarks, published in a Times article, were critical of how immigration agents conducted raids across the Twin Cities, which included two fatal encounters with U.S. citizens and drew bipartisan backlash. The administration has since shifted to quieter tactics.
In the filing, the DOJ argues that the judges' comments were "improper and unethical," alleging they made "political or policy statements concerning matters that are or have been before them." The department also called for an investigation into other "anonymous" judges who spoke to the outlet, though the article named several judges on the record, including a Trump appointee who defended judicial independence.
The complaint specifically cites Schiltz's statements that ICE had defied 96 court orders from 74 judges, and that "most, if not all, of the noncompliance was due to incompetence." Tunheim remarked that the arrests did not target "dangerous criminals on the street," a comment the DOJ called "factually inaccurate and unvarnished political commentary."
Court officials pushed back. Rebeccah Parks, a spokesperson for the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, said the judges were "acting well within the ethical rules," citing a February advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct that allows judges to speak on core judiciary matters like the rule of law and judicial independence. That opinion also permits judges to defend colleagues against "illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks."
The clash underscores a broader battle over judicial speech and independence, as judges face increasing political pressure. Threats against judges have escalated, and the DOJ's move is seen by some legal experts as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. The complaint also coincided with other administration actions targeting the courts, including renewed bans on media access and attacks on justices from within the GOP.
Legal ethics scholars note that the Committee on Codes of Conduct has repeatedly affirmed that judges may advocate for the rule of law and defend judicial independence, including in public forums. The DOJ's complaint, however, argues that the judges' comments crossed a line into political commentary, which is prohibited.
The Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit will now decide whether to pursue the complaint, which could result in sanctions or recusal orders. Observers say the outcome could set a precedent for how judges can discuss politically charged cases without facing retaliation.
As the administration continues its immigration crackdown, the dispute highlights the tension between executive enforcement and judicial oversight. Some Republicans warn of a Hispanic voter backlash, while the DOJ presses forward with its ethics challenge.
