From Ethics Complaint to Recusal Motions: DOJ Moves to Kick Two Minnesota Judges Off Cases Over Their NYT Remarks
UPDATE (Oct. 21, 2026): The judicial-ethics complaint has escalated into formal recusal motions in live cases. On Tuesday, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward — DOJ's third-highest official — filed motions asking Judge Patrick Schiltz (a George W. Bush appointee and the district's former chief judge) to step aside from U.S. v. Ahmed (No. 26-cv-02536), a denaturalization case, and Judge John Tunheim (a Clinton appointee) to step aside from U.S. v. Weihmann (No. 26-cr-175), a criminal case charging a South African woman with voting illegally and making a false claim of citizenship. A hearing before Schiltz is scheduled for Nov. 23.
The background: on Sept. 30, 2026, DOJ filed a judicial-ethics complaint against all seven active Minnesota federal judges — nominated by both parties — over their interviews with the New York Times about the "Operation Metro Surge" immigration crackdown that flooded their court last winter. Schiltz's January order had faulted ICE for violating nearly 100 court orders during the surge, and he told the Times the episode "created a grave threat to the rule of law." Tunheim told the Times that during the surge authorities "weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street."
Woodward's motion argues: "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 US citizenship." On Tunheim's remark: "That is not the law (or even about the law). But the law prohibits voting illegally. It also compels recusal when a judge's partiality might reasonably be questioned." DOJ announced the motions on X: "Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation's judiciary." A court spokesperson said last month the judges acted "well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times."
What it means: the administration's answer to judges who publicly criticize its enforcement campaign is now a two-track campaign — an ethics complaint against the whole bench, then recusal motions that would, if granted, hand case assignments in denaturalization and voting-prosecution matters to friendlier draws. That a Bush appointee who enforced nearly 100 orders against ICE is the target shows the threshold isn't partisanship; it's any public characterization of the enforcement program as lawless. The Nov. 23 hearing lands after the midterms but squarely in the fight over judicial independence.