This browser does not support the Video element.
After ICE "overwhelmed" federal courts, Chief Judge reflects on emotional toll
In his first interview since Operation Metro Surge, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz explained how ICE strained Minnesota's federal courts during the unprecedented immigration enforcement operation.
MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - In his first interview since Operation Metro Surge, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz explained how ICE strained Minnesota's federal courts during the unprecedented immigration enforcement operation.
The emotional and legal toll on Minnesota’s federal judges
What we know:
In a rare interview with the FOX 9 Investigators, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz detailed the unprecedented wave of lawsuits from detained immigrants filed against the federal government during Operation Metro Surge.
"We were all just overwhelmed with the number of cases," Schiltz said.
Schiltz explained that habeas petitions from immigrants challenging their arrests and detention poured in at all hours, and the urgency was constant.
"If I went to a movie for two hours or just wasn't near my iPhone for two hours, that could be the difference between somebody being put on a plane and sent to Texas or somewhere else and someone being ordered released and returning to their family that night. So, there was kind of an emotional toll as well as just the work and the time," explained Schiltz.
By the numbers:
In President Joe Biden’s final year in office, 2024, Minnesota’s federal court handled 12 immigration-related habeas cases, according to Schiltz.
In 2025, the first year of President Trump’s second term, there were 130 habeas cases.
Through March, there were 1,111 such cases.
"So, about 100 times more than all of 2024, we have had in just three months," Schiltz said. So, we have been busy."
Dig deeper:
In hundreds of cases, Schiltz and other federal judges either ordered the government to provide the individual a bond hearing in Immigration Court or demanded their immediate release from federal custody, including many who had been quickly sent to out-of-state ICE detention centers.
"Anytime you were doing something that was not work, you kind of felt guilty, like you should be working, because somebody might really be harmed by the fact that I went to the movie, or I went out to dinner with friends," said Schiltz.
Schiltz said he cannot comment on individual cases, policies or the administration, adding that his focus was on upholding the rule of law.
"And whether they are the ‘best of the best’ or the ‘worst of the worst’ doesn't matter to me…I have to decide whether your rights have been violated," he said.
The rulings were based on decades of legal precedent. Previous interpretations by several administrations determined people who have lived in the country for several years without documentation still had the right to a bond hearing and could not be indefinitely detained even if they were subject to deportation.
But the interpretation of the law changed after hundreds of detainees had been released.
Timeline:
A March ruling from a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government does have the right to detain many of the immigrants released in Minnesota.
After the ruling, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen told the FOX 9 Investigators that "federal judges in this district were flatly wrong."
Schiltz assessed the ruling and its fallout differently.
"So, ‘wrong’ is not a word that we really use to discuss rulings," said Schiltz. "They disagreed with our rulings. They're the bosses, they're the appellate court, we're the trial courts, and now we are complying with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling."
Schiltz expects the legal question will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court for a final interpretation of the law.
The legal fight and ongoing fallout
The backstory:
In January, at the height of the enforcement surge, Schiltz threatened to compel ICE’s top official in Washington, D.C., to testify in his Minnesota courtroom.
Schiltz also accused the U.S. Attorney’s Office of attacking the court following disputes over alleged violations of hundreds of court orders by federal agencies involved in the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.
"ICE is not a law unto itself," Schiltz wrote in one order. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Schiltz said he is limited in what he can say about those rulings and would not elaborate on the conflict that developed between federal judges and Trump administration officials.
"What I can say though, it is a pretty unusual thing for anybody to violate the order of a federal judge," said Schiltz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006.
In his twenty years on the bench, Schiltz estimated he might have one or two orders a year that were not complied with, but "never by the federal government."
"So, the situation that we confronted was highly unusual. And so, you know, all of us judges were having to make decisions and deal with the situation that we just had never dealt with before," said Schiltz.
"And whether they are the ‘best of the best’ or the ‘worst of the worst’ doesn't matter to me. If you are a human and you have rights, I have to decide whether your rights have been violated."