US Attorney seeks to disqualify judge over questions of impartiality

MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - In a motion obtained by the FOX 9 Investigators, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen is asking district court Judge Jeffrey Bryan to recuse himself from an ongoing habeas case because of the potential for bias due to separate litigation against the Trump Administration that Bryan’s wife is leading as Minnesota’s Solicitor General.

Questioning Judge Bryan’s impartiality

What we know:

U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen is asking Judge Jeffrey Bryan to disqualify himself from an ongoing habeas case that Bryan has presided over for three weeks.

In a motion filed Thursday afternoon, Rosen writes that Judge Bryan "did not disclose his marriage" to Minnesota’s Solicitor General, Liz Kramer, to the parties in the case.

As Solicitor General, Kramer is one of the leading attorneys for the state of Minnesota in its efforts to thwart the Trump administration’s enhanced immigration enforcement practices and have Operation Metro Surge declared as an unconstitutional deployment of federal resources.

Rosen says there are similar legal issues at play in both cases.

"[Liz] Kramer’s role in advancing the state’s litigation position, which clearly aligns with the claims asserted by the Petitioner here; and the fact Respondents in these habeas cases reject the assertions that Solicitor General Kramer has made, the Court must consider whether the public might reasonably question Judge Bryan’s impartiality," wrote Rosen.

The backstory:

This isn’t the first time Rosen and Judge Bryan have been at odds.

Judge Bryan recently ordered Rosen to appear in his courtroom under threat of contempt because of alleged court order violations by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the return of personal property to individual immigrants Bryan ruled were unlawfully arrested during the surge.

Rosen was initially defiant in court when Bryan told him that he had "not ruled out the consequence of imprisonment" over the violations.

READ MORE: Judge tells U.S. Attorney he hasn't ruled out imprisonment over ICE conduct

However, the judge admitted that the outcome was unlikely and told Rosen it was something he did not want to do.

At one point, Rosen accused the judge of smearing him.

While Bryan has not made a final contempt finding in that matter, Rosen does not want Bryan presiding over the separate habeas case that Rosen claims, centers on the same constitutional arguments the judge’s wife is making in the state’s broader lawsuit.

U.S. Attorney says claims are too similar

Dig deeper:

Rosen’s filing includes the following list of what he described as similar legal issues and claims between the ongoing habeas case and the state of Minnesota’s lawsuit versus the federal government:

• Petitioner was arrested as part of Operation Metro Surge.
• Operation Metro Surge is an ‘unprecedented deployment of federal immigration enforcement agents.’
• Operation Metro Surge agents have ‘arrested, detained, assaulted, terrorized, and harassed untold numbers of Minnesotans.’
• Operation Metro Surge ‘is in essence a federal invasion of the Twin Cities.’
• Respondents’ agents have terrorized, assaulted and harassed.
• Respondents’ agents arrested him without a warrant.
• Respondents targeted him based upon race, ethnicity or country of origin.

"In short, although based upon different legal theories, Judge Bryan’s spouse and the Petitioner in this case make the same allegations—that the Respondents are unlawfully and unconstitutionally arresting and detaining individuals in pursuit of Operation Metro Surge," wrote Rosen.

'Meaningless filing'

What they're saying:

Daniel Suitor, the immigration attorney of record in the habeas case, tells the FOX 9 Investigators he will oppose any motion to remove Judge Bryan.

"In an ultimately meaningless filing, Mr. Rosen argues that, because another judge is in charge of a case led by Judge Bryan's spouse, one of our state's premier public servants, that Judge Bryan could not be seen as impartial. I think that betrays more about Mr. Rosen and the dismal state of the U.S. Attorney's Office than it does about Judge Bryan," Suitor said.

Suitor explained that as far as he and his client are concerned, the habeas case should be closed because there are no outstanding issues left to be litigated.

"Our civic institutions should not be reduced to petty axe-grinding. Given the lack of dispute by my client, this matter should resolve shortly," he concluded.