DOJ launches aggressive bid to oust 2 Minnesota judges over media interviews

DOJ demands judges be removed from ICE cases over media interviews

The Justice Department is seeking to remove U.S. District Judges John Tunheim and Patrick Schiltz from separate Minnesota immigration-related cases. The DOJ says the judges’ comments in a September New York Times interview raised questions about their impartiality, while Schiltz’s defense attorney and Minnesota’s federal court dispute the allegations. A hearing on the recusal motion involving Judge Schiltz is scheduled for next month.

MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an aggressive legal effort to disqualify two federal judges in Minnesota from presiding over separate immigration-related cases, citing their participation in a controversial media interview.

New York Times interview under scrutiny

What we know:

In a pair of motions filed this week, the DOJ requested that U.S. District Judges John Tunheim and Patrick Schiltz recuse themselves from cases currently on their dockets.

Both requests stem from the judges' on-the-record comments in a September 17, 2026, New York Times article titled "Trump's Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns."

Federal prosecutors argue that both judges engaged in political commentary that violates objective standards for judicial impartiality.

The case against Judge Tunheim

Dig deeper:

The motion against Judge Tunheim involves the criminal case United States v. Hester Sophia Weihmann, in which the defendant is charged with illegally casting a vote by a non-citizen.

In the New York Times article, Judge Tunheim criticized the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities, stating, "They weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street".

The DOJ argues that Tunheim views the enforcement of federal immigration and election laws against non-dangerous individuals as unwarranted.

The government claims that an average person on the street would reasonably question whether Tunheim can remain impartial when trying a defendant accused of illegally voting as an alien.

The case against Judge Schiltz

What they're saying:

The effort to remove Judge Schiltz targets a civil denaturalization case, United States v. Salah Osman Ahmed, which is part of a broader DOJ initiative to revoke the citizenship of individuals who allegedly obtained it illegally.

The DOJ's memorandum notes Judge Schiltz sat for the 90-minute Times interview where he accused the administration of displaying a "disregard for court orders" and allegedly compared the administration's actions to the authoritarian regimes of Russia, China, and North Korea.

Defense attorney Daniel Gerdts, who is representing Ahmed, firmly pushed back against the government's motion.

"The contrived and baseless attack on Judge Schiltz is just cover intended to distract from the case's utter lack of merit," Gerdts told FOX 9. "The only ethical violation is the DOJ's filing of a frivolous lawsuit against Mr. Ahmed."

Acting within ethical rules

The other side:

While the DOJ filings argue that the judges' statements fall outside ethical bounds, a spokesperson for Minnesota’s U.S. District Court defended the judges.

In a statement issued last month following a related DOJ ethics complaint to the Eighth Circuit, the court pushed back against claims of impropriety.

"As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, our judges were acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times," the statement read. "Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may 'speak and writ[e] on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.' Our judges acted within this capacity."

Judge Schiltz previously spoke to FOX 9

Big picture view:

The scrutiny surrounding Judge Schiltz’s public comments comes as he has spoken with other outlets, including sitting down with the FOX 9 Investigators for an interview earlier this year.

In that conversation—which focused on the logistical burdens of the federal immigration blitz and the subsequent surge in litigation—Schiltz detailed the immense strain placed on the court.

That interview did not generate the same level of controversy as the New York Times piece.

"We were all just overwhelmed with the number of cases," Schiltz told the FOX 9 Investigators. "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."