DOJ Files Judicial-Ethics Complaint Against Seven Minnesota Judges Who Spoke to the NYT — and Demands Recusal From All DHS Cases

DOJ Files Judicial-Ethics Complaint Against Seven Minnesota Judges Who Spoke to the NYT — and Demands Recusal From All DHS Cases

On Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026, the Justice Department filed a judicial-ethics complaint against all seven active federal judges in Minnesota — nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents — over their remarks to The New York Times about the pressure on their courthouse during last winter's Operation Metro Surge immigration crackdown, which led to thousands of arrests in the Twin Cities. The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters the department is demanding the judges recuse themselves from all criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security because of what he described as the "obvious bias they have shown" in their remarks to the newspaper.

The judge at the center of the story is Patrick Schiltz (D. Minn.) — a George W. Bush appointee who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia — who in January accused the government of failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders and wrote in a ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "is not a law unto itself." He told the NYT that what happened in Minnesota's federal court last winter "created a grave threat to the rule of law."

Schiltz's response cited the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, which in February 2026 issued an advisory opinion emphasizing that federal judges may speak or write "on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence." Said Schiltz: "That is exactly what I did." A spokesperson for the Minnesota court said legal experts have confirmed the judges acted "well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges."

As the AP/PBS report puts it: "The complaint escalates the department's battle with the federal judiciary, which has halted administration priorities, dismissed high-profile prosecutions and accused government lawyers in some cases of failing to comply with court orders."

What it means

This is a new instrument in the executive-judiciary conflict: rather than appealing rulings, the DOJ is using the judicial-complaint process itself to punish sitting judges for public criticism of ICE's noncompliance with court orders¹²³ — and to seek the wholesale disqualification of a district's entire bench from DHS cases. That the target includes a Bush-appointed Scalia clerk underscores that the administration's conflict is with judicial oversight as such, not with "activist" appointees of the other party. The complaint lands three days after the en banc D.C. Circuit argument over Judge Boasberg's contempt probe (see D.C. Circuit En Banc Hears the Fight Over Boasberg's Contempt Probe of the Deportation Flights) — two parallel tests of whether judges can hold the executive to account for defying orders.