Two Minnesota federal judges who took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown to the New York Times are now fighting the administration’s efforts to disqualify them from cases involving immigration enforcement.One of those judges, Patrick Schiltz, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to strip U.S.
citizenship from Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al- Shabaab.The other, John Tunheim, is presiding over the prosecution of a South African national accused of falsely claiming U.
S.citizenship and illegally voting in the 2024 election.
The Justice Department filed separate motions asking Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves, arguing that their participation in the New York Times report criticizing President Donald Trump's Operation Metro Surge has raised questions about whether they can fairly preside over the cases."Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary," the Justice Department said in a statement posted to X this week."Judge Schiltz’s and Judge Tunheim’s on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltz’s subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases."OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE AT CENTER OF TRUMP'S ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND CASE HIT WITH MISCONDUCT CLAIMA federal law enforcement agent outside a home during a raid in south Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan.
13, 2026.(Victor J.
Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)The Justice Department's formal recusal demand follows reporting by Fox News Digital last month detailing unusual behind-the-scenes coordination among Minnesota's federal bench as judges confronted a massive influx of immigration cases stemming from the administration's enforcement operation.The report came after Schiltz and Tunheim were among ...