The Justice Department is seeking to remove two federal judges in Minnesota from separate immigration-related cases, arguing that comments they made to the New York Times about immigration enforcement raise questions about their impartiality.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodard, the department’s third-ranking official, filed motions Tuesday targeting U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. The cases involve the Trump administration’s effort to strip a Minnesota man of his U.S. citizenship and the prosecution of a South African woman accused of voting illegally in the 2024 election.
The motions mark another clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement and the role judges play in reviewing the government’s actions. The Justice Department contended that the judges’ remarks to the New York Times in September suggest they have already formed opinions about the administration’s immigration policies and should not oversee cases tied to those efforts.
“Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary,” the DOJ wrote Wednesday. “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 doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases.”
Schiltz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota last winter, drew criticism from the administration after describing its actions as “a grave threat to the rule of law.” He previously clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Tunheim, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, also drew criticism for comments about immigration arrests.
“They weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street,” Tunheim told the New York Times.
In his motion targeting Schiltz, Woodard argued that a judge who has taken a position on immigration enforcement should not preside over a case involving the administration’s effort to expand denaturalization proceedings.
“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,” Woodard wrote.
He argued that allowing Schiltz to remain on the case would undermine public confidence in the proceedings.
“Absent recusal, the American people will reasonably question whether Judge Schiltz can be impartial regarding this important matter defending the integrity of American citizenship,” Woodard wrote.
The Justice Department made a similar argument against Tunheim, claiming his comments to the news outlet suggested he viewed the charges against the South African defendant as unwarranted.
“To Judge Tunheim, the ‘rule of law’ apparently means ignoring the law when it comes to illegal aliens who have broken the law,” Woodward wrote. “In sum, Judge Tunheim’s statements and participation in the New York Times article, at a minimum, give rise to the appearance of bias in immigration-related cases.”
Schiltz has scheduled a hearing on the motion seeking his recusal for Nov. 23.
DOJ steps up fight with judges accused of bias and stalling Trump agenda
The filings follow another effort by Woodard to remove a federal judge from a case involving the Trump administration. Over the weekend, he sought to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., from overseeing litigation over the president’s efforts to overhaul a historic public golf course in the capital.
Reyes rejected the Justice Department’s request Sunday, accusing the department of using “selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion.”
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
