Justice Department Clashes with Minnesota Judges Over Immigration Raids

• DOJ sues seven judges
• Immigration raids spark dispute
• Judges asked to recuse themselves in DHS cases

The Department of Justice (DOJ) opened a new front with the federal judiciary on Wednesday by filing a complaint for alleged misconduct against judges in Minnesota.

The complaint stems from an article in which seven judges spoke with The New York Times about the immigration crackdown in Minnesota and its effects on the courts.

Among them are Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, while other judges remain unidentified in the document presented to the Eighth Circuit.

The DOJ claims that some comments addressed pending immigration issues and considers that these statements could compromise the public perception of judicial impartiality.

DOJ Sues Minnesota Judges Over Immigration Raids

The Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over their remarks to the media about the pressure on their courthouse during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge. https://t.co/DXZcl1ZwPA

— PBS News (@NewsHour) September 30, 2026

Why it matters: The conflict directly pits the Department of Justice against judges who oversee litigation related to immigration policy enforcement.

The fact: Seven judges spoke with the newspaper, and six of them were active during the immigration operation last winter.

The process: The DOJ asked the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate the alleged actions and examine possible recusals.

What can be done: People with pending immigration cases should follow their court’s resolutions and seek professional guidance in the event of any procedural changes.

DOJ Asks to Remove Judges from DHS-Related Cases

Blanche: «Today, we’re also announcing that just a few minutes ago the DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals against all but one district court judge in the District of Minnesota for violating various judicial canons.» pic.twitter.com/zHKWtgv8iG

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2026

The controversy originated from a report published on September 17, for which Schiltz granted a 90-minute interview.

During the interviews, judges described problems caused by the increase in cases during the immigration operation and expressed concerns related to court orders and the rule of law.

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED: Trump begins sending $500 Obamacare checks: Who will receive the money?

Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that speaking publicly about matters still under judicial consideration would represent, according to the DOJ’s position, a violation of ethical obligations.

The complaint also requests that those who participated in these conversations recuse themselves from matters related to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Ethical Rules at the Center of the Dispute

NEW: A federal grand jury has returned indictments against ten foreign nationals alleged to have committed unlawful voting and registration offenses in Minnesota.

According to Attorney General Todd Blanche, the charges include illegally voting in elections spanning from 2022 to… pic.twitter.com/4t2OKzvbrg

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 30, 2026

The Code of Conduct for federal judges states that a judge should not comment publicly on the merits of pending or imminent cases before the courts.

However, the rules themselves provide that judges may speak, write, and participate in activities related to the law, the judicial system, and the administration of justice.

Schiltz rejected the DOJ’s interpretation and stated that he acted within the ethical rules, citing guidance that allows addressing central issues for the judiciary and its independence.

Therefore, the filing of the complaint does not equate to a determination of guilt: it is now up to the judicial disciplinary system to evaluate the accusations made by the Justice Department.

Immigration Raids Revive Tension Between DOJ and Courts

The episode occurs after months of judicial disputes related to the federal immigration operation deployed in Minnesota and compliance with court-issued orders.

The DOJ claims that public statements raise reasonable doubts about the impartiality of judges when the DHS appears as a party to the litigation.

Judges, on the other hand, may argue that speaking about judicial independence and the functioning of the courts is allowed as long as they do not improperly comment on the merits of pending cases.

The Eighth Circuit will now have to determine how to proceed with the complaint, while the case expands the debate on the limits between judicial freedom of expression, impartiality, and immigration enforcement.

Sources: Efe, CNN.