The Justice Department filed a Justice Department recusal motion Minnesota judges on Tuesday, asking Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim to step aside from separate immigration cases in Minnesota. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed both motions after quoted the judges about the Trump administration's handling of immigration cases in Minnesota.
Patrick Schiltz Nov. 23 hearing
Woodward told the court that "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 U.S. citizenship." He also wrote, "Absent recusal, the American people will reasonably question whether Judge Schiltz can be impartial regarding this important matter defending the integrity of American citizenship."
Schiltz scheduled a hearing on the motion against him for Nov. 23. In his case, the Trump administration is seeking to strip a Minnesota man of his U.S. citizenship, putting the motion directly in the path of a separate citizenship dispute rather than a broad policy fight.
John Tunheim and the 2024 election
Woodward used sharper language in the motion against Tunheim, writing, "To Judge Tunheim, the 'rule of law' apparently means ignoring the law when it comes to illegal aliens who have broken the law." Tunheim's case involves a South African national who faces two charges of illegally voting in the 2024 election and has pleaded not guilty.
The Justice Department said the judges' comments from last month give rise to the appearance of bias in immigration-related cases, and the article tied those remarks to Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year. Judicial ethics rules generally bar judges from publicly discussing cases pending before them, which is why the department's effort has drawn attention beyond these two cases.
Ana Reyes ruling
Woodward had already filed another recusal motion over the weekend against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes rejected that effort on Sunday and said the department was weaponizing selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion. He was the only government lawyer who signed the motions, underscoring that the department is pressing a small number of judges through the same recusal theory rather than a broader filing campaign.
For Schiltz and Tunheim, the practical question now is whether the recusal arguments survive. If they do not, both judges stay on their cases; if they do, the matters would move to someone else. The immediate test comes first in Schiltz's courtroom, where the Nov. 23 hearing will put Woodward's challenge in front of the judge he wants removed.
