The Justice Department is escalating its confrontation with the federal bench to a level not seen in modern American history, filing motions to disqualify judges it accuses of partiality against President Donald Trump's agenda.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, the department's third-ranking official, moved Tuesday to remove two Minnesota federal judges from separate immigration-related cases, according to the Washington Examiner. The motions target U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, both of whom made comments to the New York Times about the administration's immigration enforcement in Minnesota — remarks Woodward says call their impartiality into question.
In the case before Schiltz, the Trump administration is seeking to strip a Minnesota man of his U.S. citizenship. Tunheim is overseeing the prosecution of a South African national charged with illegally voting in the 2024 election. She has pleaded not guilty.
Woodward also moved over the weekend to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes from a case involving Trump's efforts to overhaul a historic public golf course in Washington, D.C. Reyes rejected that request on Sunday and accused the DOJ of weaponizing "selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion," according to the Washington Examiner.
At the center of the Minnesota motions are comments the two judges gave the Times for an article published last month. Both raised concerns about the administration's handling of cases stemming from Operation Metro Surge, the immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year. Woodward argued in the filings that the judges, by publicly weighing in on the political issue of immigration enforcement, have signaled which side they are on.
"A judge who has publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement" cannot credibly preside over a case arising from that enforcement, Woodward wrote, per the Examiner's reporting.
Under federal ethics rules, judges cannot publicly discuss pending cases, leaving them limited in how they can respond to the filings. Schiltz has scheduled a hearing on the motion against him for Nov. 23. It is not yet known whether Tunheim has set a similar hearing.
The recusal motions mark a shift in strategy for an administration that spent nearly two years publicly protesting judges' orders that blocked or slowed its policies — and is now asking courts to remove the judges themselves and calling for scrutiny of their conduct. The Examiner reported that the department argues some judges have crossed the line from oversight into partisan obstruction.
The Justice Department's push comes as the administration's immigration agenda continues to produce a wave of litigation across the country. Judges appointed by both parties have issued rulings blocking or delaying enforcement actions, and the administration has increasingly argued that the volume of rulings against it reflects something other than routine legal disagreement.
For now, the recusal fight centers on Woodward's filings, the two Minnesota cases, and Reyes' refusal to step aside in Washington. Whether other judges will follow Reyes' combative posture — or whether the department will expand the strategy to additional districts — is not yet known.
Our Take
Here's what the legacy media won't tell you plainly: this is what accountability looks like.
For years, conservative Americans watched federal judges hand down nationwide injunctions built on shaky reasoning, and they were told that criticizing the courts was an attack on the rule of law itself. The Justice Department is now doing what the critics never did — not complaining on cable news, but filing motions, citing ethics rules, and forcing judges to answer for their public statements in open court.
Look closely at what prompted the Minnesota filings. Two judges sat for interviews with the New York Times about the administration's immigration enforcement — a political hot-button — and then expected to preside over cases arising from that same enforcement. A judge who tells the country's paper of record how he feels about Operation Metro Surge has told the parties in his courtroom something too. Woodward is right to ask whether that is compatible with impartiality.
The usual suspects will call this weaponization. They said the same about everything this administration does. But the standard being applied is simple: if a judge's own words raise doubts about his neutrality, the parties are entitled to say so. That is not an attack on the judiciary. It is a request that judges be judged by the same plain rules as everyone else.
Judge Reyes' response, calling the motion baseless, is exactly the kind of test that will define this fight. When a jurist can publicly reject a recusal request and keep the case, the burden falls on the appeals courts to decide whether the process means anything.
So watch this space, patriots. If the courts will not police their own, the Justice Department has made clear it will do the asking. The only question left is which judges step aside quietly — and which ones force the issue.
