The New York Times published one of its typical hit pieces on ICE and immigration reform earlier in September, darkly titled “Trump’s Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns.”
The article included quotes from seven Minnesota jurists who were complaining about the “grave threat to the rule of law” posed by Operation Metro Surge, the large-scale roundup of illegal aliens that went down in December 2025 through February of this year.
The only problem? Judges commenting on pending matters is prohibited by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, as the DOJ noted in a statement Wednesday:
Judges are ethically prohibited from commenting publicly on cases pending in any court and making political or policy statements concerning matters that are or have been before them.
But the department isn’t just posting statements; it’s filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit against the judges. Jurists are supposed to be neutral arbiters, they explained, and they should not be pandering to the leftist media:
"Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of Justice views as a clear violation of their ethical duties," said Attorney General Todd Blanche. "Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota."
“Our complaint alleges that federal judges in Minnesota used their official judicial office to pander to the press about immigration policies,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “Judges who covet publicity rather than follow the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies undermine the public’s confidence in an impartial jury.”
Aside from what is an obvious bias against @DHSgov and immigration authorities in Minnesota, these judges are commenting publicly on pending and impending cases and making political statements on matters that are or have been before them. This is a flagrant violation of the Code… https://t.co/HhoE6QYfy9
— Attorney General Todd Blanche (@AGToddBlanche) September 30, 2026
Aside from what is an obvious bias against @DHSgov and immigration authorities in Minnesota, these judges are commenting publicly on pending and impending cases and making political statements on matters that are or have been before them. This is a flagrant violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and when judges repeatedly exceed their authority—then launch a partisan press campaign—that is a threat to the rule of law.
Blanche said at a Wednesday morning press briefing that the seven, a group which includes George W. Bush appointee Patrick J. Schiltz, Clinton appointee John R. Tunheim, and five unnamed jurists, were way out of line:
Reporter: “Just on the judicial misconduct complaint [against 6 Minnesota Judges]… How would you expect would be the proper way for a judge or judges to speak out about what they obviously describe in this article as, ‘a grave threat to the rule of law’?”
— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) September 30, 2026
AG Todd Blanche:… pic.twitter.com/yb8t2apKS2
Reporter: “Just on the judicial misconduct complaint [against 6 Minnesota Judges]… How would you expect would be the proper way for a judge or judges to speak out about what they obviously describe in this article as, ‘a grave threat to the rule of law’?”
AG Todd Blanche: “It's not what I think. It's not what the Department of Justice thinks. It's what the judicial canons say they're allowed to do. And so if the judicial canons say, ‘Go ahead and talk to The New York Times,’ then I would have no basis to complain.”
“The judicial canons say exactly the opposite.”
Activist Judges SHOULD be held accountable for discussing their opinions on ongoing legal matters they are handling.
Schiltz doesn’t give a damn about ethical violations, apparently, and was defiant in an interview, telling Newsweek that he acted "well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges" when he yapped to the Times.
"Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may 'speak and writ[e] on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.' That is exactly what I did," he said.
Federal judges have lifetime appointments, and it’s highly unlikely this complaint will lead to their impeachment by Congress. The court could rule, however, that they must recuse themselves from any matters involving the Department of Homeland Security, which is the action the DOJ is requesting.
If you ever wondered, though, if there are a whole bunch of activist judges out there putting partisan fingers on the scales, this bunch is your Exhibit A.
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.