Justice Department files misconduct complaint against Minnesota federal judges over media comments
U.S. PoliticsWell-coveredThe Facts
- The Justice Department filed a judicial-misconduct complaint involving Minnesota federal district judges.
- The complaint concerns judges' comments to The New York Times about the immigration-enforcement surge in Minnesota.
- The department alleges the judges violated judicial ethics rules by publicly discussing pending or recent cases.
- The complaint names Judges Patrick J. Schiltz and John R. Tunheim.
- The Justice Department seeks the judges' recusal from criminal and civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.
- The complaint was filed with the Eighth Circuit, whose judicial council can review judicial-conduct complaints.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department sought action because it viewed the judges as biased.
Context
Which judges does the complaint target?
It targets all but one of Minnesota's active federal district judges, including Judges Patrick J. Schiltz and John R. Tunheim; the complaint also concerns other judges who spoke to The New York Times. Aol CNBC Washington Post Newsweek
What did the judges discuss with The New York Times?
They discussed the pressures on their court and concerns about the government's handling of cases during last winter's immigration-enforcement surge in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Aol CBS News Al Jazeera Online PBS.org
What is the Justice Department asking the Eighth Circuit to do?
The department asked for an investigation and for the judges to step aside from criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security. NYT CNBC U.S. News & World R… Raw Story
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Judicial ethics rules restrict discussing pending or recent cases publicly, and both framings treat the question of whether that line was crossed as one worth scrutinizing.
- Where Left and Right split
- The left and the right split on whether this complaint silences judges or enforces impartiality rules.
- Why they won’t converge
- The divide is over trust in institutions: the left treats judicial public comment as accountability the public needs, while the right treats the ethics rules barring such comment as the very safeguard that makes judicial impartiality credible, so the same facts read as transparency to one side and disqualifying breach to the other.
How left and right read it
A judge who describes what an immigration crackdown is doing to his courtroom has not shown bias; he has shown the public something the public is entitled to know. Yet the Justice Department answered Judges Schiltz and Tunheim's comments to a newspaper with a misconduct complaint demanding they step aside from Homeland Security cases, because Todd Blanche deemed them biased. That is not a disqualification standard, it is a warning to the bench. Demand proof of actual bias, not silence.
“The move marks the latest escalation of the ongoing conflict between the administration and the federal judiciary, which has pushed back or halted several aspects of Trump's agenda.” — Washington Post
Every party before a federal court — the government included — is entitled to a judge whose impartiality is not in doubt, and that entitlement is why discussing pending or recent cases with a newspaper is barred by the ethics rules in the first place. Judges Schiltz and Tunheim spoke anyway about the enforcement surge, so the Eighth Circuit's judicial council now has a complaint it should actually examine. The standard applies to appointees of both parties. Appearance of bias requires recusal.
“The judicial misconduct complaint names Judge Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton-appointed Judge John Tunheim, both of whom have openly criticized Trump's immigration policies.” — Breitbart
A misconduct complaint can protect litigants from a biased judge, or press judges into silence — the fight is over which one happened here.
The receipts — all 63 sources
Wire services (6)
Independent coverage (50)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.