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 CLAIM

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 seven Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the Times in September about Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz sat for a roughly 90- minute interview during which he described the administration's handling of the operation as having created a "grave threat to the rule of law," while Tunheim suggested to the Times that agents carrying out the administration's immigration crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.

DOJ had already raised the prospect that judges who publicly discussed the administration's immigration cases might need to step aside when the Times report was released in September. Last month, DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota judges who participated in the Times report, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate. Attorney General Todd Blanche said their conduct had "undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota."

"It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration's policies rather than ruling from the bench," a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in September. "Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward."

'WORST OF THE WORST' JUDGES ARE SABOTAGING TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION AGENDA, TOP DHS OFFICIAL SAYS

The Times report in question revealed that Schiltz, Tunheim and the other Minnesota judges handling the flood of Operation Metro Surge cases regularly met, communicated through running email threads and used an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks to identify judges to consult about recurring legal questions. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud previously told Fox News Digital that the judges nevertheless independently decided every case assigned to them.

"The bottom line is that each of us made an independent decision with respect to the merits of each and every petition we were assigned," Tostrud said at the time.

The Justice Department, however, has accused Schiltz and the other judges of "publicly" taking sides in the ongoing battle over Trump's deportation agenda.

"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," Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote.

Schiltz declined to comment on the Justice Department's new effort to disqualify him when reached by Fox News Digital this week. But when Fox News Digital asked him about the possibility of recusal in September, Schiltz argued there was no basis for him to step aside — and pointed to the fact that DOJ had not asked him to do so.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S IMMIGRATION PUSH FUELS ICE'S BIGGEST ARREST MONTH IN AGENCY HISTORY

"I have seen suggestions from the Administration that I might have to recuse in immigration cases, but no one has yet identified any basis for my recusal, which is presumably why the Justice Department has not asked me to recuse," Schiltz said at the time.

"Neither in the New York Times article nor anywhere else have I commented on the merits of a particular case," he continued. "Instead, I have spoken in defense of the rule of law, a component of which is compliance with court orders. That is not a cause for recusal."

Tunheim did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation who previously served as a federal prosecutor and military judge, told Fox News Digital that judges ordinarily avoid publicly commenting on matters that could intersect with cases before them.

"These judges did something extraordinarily imprudent, and that is to talk to any newspaper, much less the New York Times," Stimson said. "That was a big no-no."

STATE'S LARGEST MOSQUE LEADER’S DEPORTATION FIGHT TAKES DRAMATIC TURN AS TRUMP ADMIN SCORES MAJOR WIN

Asked what he would do if the New York Times interviews were the only facts at issue, Stimson said he would step aside.

"If we were to just go off of the New York Times interview ... I would recuse myself," Stimson said, noting the recusal would only be from the particular case at issue as opposed to all future cases adjudicating the same principles.

Stimson cautioned, however, that recusal motions put judges in the unusual position of effectively judging their own impartiality and said it would be inappropriate to predict how either motion should ultimately be resolved without the complete record.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

If either judge denies DOJ's request, Stimson said the government could seek review from the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel would determine whether the government has met the legal standard for recusal.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

DOJ declined to comment further Thursday beyond its public statement. A DOJ spokesperson also did not answer Fox News Digital's question about whether the department would appeal if Schiltz or Tunheim denies the recusal motions.

A Biden-appointed federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security must halt certain investigations into suspected illegal voting, citing concerns over voter intimidation.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, the jurist in question, was born in Mexico and nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2022. Before becoming a federal judge, Martínez-Olguín spent about six years at the American Civil Liberties Union, a progressive civil rights organization, where she worked on women's and immigrants' rights issues.

The activist groups suing DHS "demonstrate[d] that they are likely to succeed in their claim that Defendants have run afoul of the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition of intimidating voter assistance and mobilization," according to Martínez-Olguín.

DOJ OFFICIAL DEFENDS TRUMP'S NONCITIZEN VOTER PROBE ON '60 MINUTES,' ACCUSES SHOW OF EDITING OUT HER ANSWERS

The public’s "interests in safe elections, free from interference or intimidation, far exceed (the government’s) purported interest in combating unlawful voting by non-U.S. citizens," she added.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, maintained that noncitizen voting in federal elections is a crime and that DHS has statutory authority to investigate suspected violations. Martínez-Olguín did not find investigating noncitizen voting as itself unlawful, but instead argued that DHS’ methods likely violate the law as it used unreliable source data and sent armed agents to homes to conduct interviews, which could constitute intimidation.

STATE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS SHARING PASSPORT RECORDS FOR VOTER CITIZENSHIP CHECKS

Lawyers representing the federal government conceded that some American citizens may have been looked at in connection with DHS’ investigations, but contended that in-person interviews were "expressly designed to resolve the discrepancies."

Noncitizen voting is rare, but cases of illegal voting have been documented. News broke earlier this year, for example, that New Jersey erroneously placed over 6,000 non-citizens on its voter rolls. The Justice Department announced charges against 16 individuals in September, including noncitizens accused of voting illegally in federal elections, and brought additional election-related charges in October.

NEW JERSEY REMOVES 6,600 PEOPLE FROM VOTER ROLLS WHO WERE ELIGIBLE TO CAST A BALLOT FOR 2024 ELECTION

Martínez-Olguín’s order blocks DHS from carrying out certain field investigations into suspected illegal voting involving U.S. citizens in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Several of those states are led by Democrats who have opposed the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies, and some face high-profile elections in November.

Cracking down on illegal voting has been a priority for the second Trump administration, though it has yet to produce evidence of widespread noncitizen voting.

The judge delayed enforcement of her order until Friday, giving the Trump administration time to appeal, and set the restrictions to expire on Election Day unless otherwise ordered.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"DHS is laser focused on identifying, prosecuting, and removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of U.S. citizens. ONLY Americans should elect American leaders," a spokesperson for the department told Fox News Digital. "We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens."

FIRST ON FOX: A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama is being accused of "misconduct" in a case involving President Donald Trump.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is demanding an investigation into U.S. Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida after she sanctioned Trump's lawyers over his case against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Jordan wrote to the Judicial Conference of the United States that "there is evidence that Judge Williams abused her judicial authority and violated fundamental tenets of judicial impartiality in connection with an unusual and unsupported order that imposed sanctions after the plaintiffs voluntarily had dismissed the underlying action."

The letter is being co-led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel's subcommittee on courts.

OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE WITH TIES TO ANTI-TRUMP CONSPIRACY THEORY HIT WITH MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

Trump, his adult sons Eric and Donald Jr., and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit against the IRS in early 2026 seeking $10 billion in damages after a contractor with the agency leaked the president's tax returns to the press. The contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to five years in federal prison.

APOLOGIES AND CASH HEADED TO ALLEGED ‘WEAPONIZATION’ VICTIMS IN BILLION-DOLLAR TRUMP SETTLEMENT

Trump, who filed the lawsuit in his personal capacity, had it voluntarily dismissed in May. Shortly after, however, the administration announced a settlement agreement that included $1.776 billion for an "anti-weaponization fund" for victims of "lawfare" by the Biden administration. Trump himself would receive no compensation, but would get a formal apology from the federal government and bar the IRS from ever auditing Trump or his family.

Williams, however, then accused the plaintiffs of purposely manipulating the courts to achieve the settlement and sanctioned two of the president's lawyers in a July order. Her order referred lawyer Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary action and prevented lawyer Daniel Epstein from practicing under her jurisdiction for at least a year.

LIBERAL LAW PROFESSOR BREAKS WITH OBAMA JUDGE OVER TRUMP LAWYER CRACKDOWN: ‘I REFUSE TO TEACH’ IT

Jordan's letter called the timing of Williams' order "suspect" for coming after the case was voluntarily withdrawn.

He also accused Williams of basing the action on an amicus brief submitted by left-wing judicial activist group Democracy Defenders Action. The brief, which the group said was submitted on behalf of 35 former federal judges, called on Williams to reopen the case despite the dismissal by the involved parties and accused both sides of "fraud" over the settlement.

GOP SENATOR UNVEILS BOASBERG ACT TO STOP 'ROGUE' JUDGES FROM HANDPICKING TRUMP CASES

"Judge Williams issued her July 13 order after the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case, ending the dispute between the parties," Jordan and Issa wrote. "Although Judge Williams invoked the court's inherent authority to impose sanctions, the Committee is not aware of Eleventh Circuit precedent applying inherent sanctions authority after a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed a case based on briefing by partisan nonparties on an unrelated question the court never decided."

They concluded, "Judge Williams's conduct risks undermining public confidence in the federal courts. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Judicial Conference review this matter, including whether it warrants referral to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit or other appropriate action, and that you inform the Committee of steps taken no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2026."

CLINTON JUDGE INDEFINITELY BLOCKS TRUMP'S $1.776B ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND

Issa told Fox News Digital in his own statement, "The rogue federal judges who make up the Trump Resistance in Robes continue to disappoint but never surprise. Judge Williams hasn't only shown her liberal contempt for President Trump — but crossed a bright ethical line by going after his attorneys."

Trump allies, particularly in Congress, have clashed with federal judges on multiple fronts so far this term. Republicans have accused what they call "activist judges" of weaponizing their courts to block Trump's agenda.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Democrats, meanwhile, backed up Williams' skepticism of Trump's settlement. The anti-weaponization fund proposal, which has since been blocked by other courts, has received bipartisan pushback.

A Biden-appointed judge embroiled in a fierce dispute with the Trump administration over the removal of hundreds of trees at a federally owned D. C. golf course reversed course during Monday's nearly seven-hour hearing.

Judge Ana Reyes ended the nearly seven-hour hearing by backing away from her initial demand that Justice Department attorneys arguing the case put their names alongside Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr.’s Sunday filing. Reyes had invoked Rule 11, which requires attorneys to stand behind the factual basis of court filings and can subject them to sanctions for violations.

"Late breaking news," Reyes said. "I'm going to withdraw request that DOJ refile yesterday's brief with identification of who signed it. we've all got better things to spend our time on."

The about-face from Reyes, who hours before the hearing was dubbed a "crazed lunatic" by President Donald Trump on Truth Social, is the latest development in a court battle over Trump's plans to completely renovate East Potomac Golf Links into a "world-class, U.S. Open-caliber course." The lawsuit, which was first filed in February, reached a boiling point earlier this month when the National Park Service removed roughly 430 trees at the golf course over a weekend. The Interior Department said the tree removals were part of a years-old plan to restore the course’s historic design and were unrelated to Trump’s proposed overhaul.

BIDEN JUDGE REJECTS OBAMA CIA CHIEF'S LEGAL BID AGAINST TRUMP OVER ONE KEY PROBLEM

Though the action did not violate a court order, it prompted Reyes to impose a temporary restraining order barring further tree removals. She also was described as "screaming" at the administration attorneys during an Oct. 12 hearing.

The hearing prompted Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to seek Reyes’ removal from the case, accusing her of bias and "open hostility" toward the Trump administration.

Both Woodward and Trump have called for the release of the court’s audio recordings of the hearings.

"The judge on the case is a crazed lunatic whose courthouse tapes will reveal, may be insane? The tapes have been blocked from usage by the judge," Trump posted Monday hours before the hearing, saying the Trump administration has a "right" to turn the course into a "great, safe, and prestigious" golf course. "Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY! The finished product will be World Class, and bring income and great prestige back to D.C."

Trump made two other tweets Sunday saying that Interior Department Secretary Doug Burgum and architect Tom Fazio had "developed a plan" to revamp the East Potomac Golf Links into a "World Class Championship Golf Course" and that work would begin November 15.

The tweets prompted Reyes to give the Justice Department an 8 p.m. filing deadline, saying Trump's characterization conflicted with a previous filing that stated there was "no agency action" in Trump's golf course plan.

The filing was signed only by Woodward, which immediately became a point of contention at the start of Monday's hearing.

LIBERAL LAW PROFESSOR BREAKS WITH OBAMA JUDGE OVER TRUMP LAWYER CRACKDOWN: ‘I REFUSE TO TEACH’ IT

Reyes demanded that the attorneys "raise your hand" if they would sign the briefing, which Woodward said was "not an appropriate request."

She then invoked Rule 11 and ordered them to the podium to sign the filing.

But Woodward and the attorneys refused. Reyes initially set a 3 p.m. deadline but later extended it until noon Tuesday and offered to allow the attorneys' names to appear on the brief rather than requiring their signatures. In the end, she abandoned the demand completely.

"For those wondering, a common reason high level DOJ appointees sometimes signs briefs boils down to good leadership," Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor, wrote on X. "If there is something that is likely to be contentious with a judge, a DOJ leader signs their name on the brief so that any issues someone has with the brief is directed at them rather than lower level attorneys. Regardless, it goes without saying that a decision such as this should not be something a judge is inquiring into."

EXCLUSIVE: TRUMP’S DC JUDICIAL NEMESIS TARGETED IN MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT OVER ALLEGED BIDEN DOJ TIES

"DOJ line attorneys increasingly do not sign briefs because of Dem law fare. Dems have and continue to go after the bar licenses of young DOJ line attorneys who are simply executing on behalf of the department," Rachel Boulvard, vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, wrote on X.

Reyes, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, previously faced a Justice Department judicial-misconduct complaint over her handling of litigation challenging Trump’s restrictions on transgender individuals serving in the military.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

During a February 2025 hearing, Reyes questioned a Trump administration attorney about what Jesus Christ would say about policies excluding transgender people from homeless shelters.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Then-DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle accused Reyes of "hostile and egregious misconduct" and potential bias in a formal complaint filed with the D.C. Circuit. The complaint was later dismissed, with the circuit’s chief judge concluding that a recusal motion was the proper avenue for challenging Reyes’ conduct.