DOJ Brings Complaint Against Minnesota Judges For ‘Pandering’ To NYT About Deportations:
The Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against several Minnesota-based federal judges for “pander[ing]” to legacy media about ICE operations in the state.
“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,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”
The complaint addressed to 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Steven Colloton takes to task a Sept. 17 Times article, in which Senior District Judge Patrick Schiltz and his colleagues bashed the Trump administration’s handling of cases involving its January 2026 deportation operations in the North Star State. The Times dutifully framed the judges’ remarks as a concerted effort by the government to “defy” federal judges, but even Schiltz conceded that “most, if not all” of the alleged noncompliance “was due to incompetence” and “not due to conscious defiance of orders.“
Equally notable about the Times article, however, is the apparent admission that these judges coordinated with one another on ICE-related cases being filed before them.
The Times noted how they “recalled seeking one another’s counsel, meeting regularly and consulting in running email threads” as the “number of cases ramped up.” While “some of their clerks made an informal spreadsheet showing whom to consult on particular legal questions,” some judges “built templates of legal orders so they could respond quickly to some of the detention issues that were arising again and again,” according to the outlet. --->READ MORE HERE
DOJ moves to boot federal judges from immigration cases over NYT interview:
Attorney General Todd Blanche says seven judges improperly commented on immigration enforcement while cases were pending
The Justice Department wants several Minnesota federal judges removed from immigration cases after accusing them of crossing an ethical line by publicly criticizing President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.
The complaint argued the judges improperly commented on the Trump administration's immigration enforcement while related cases were still pending, undermining public confidence in their impartiality.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Wednesday that the Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against seven Minnesota federal judges over their participation in a New York Times interview published last September.
"These judges talked to the media, or at least The New York Times, about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner which the Department views as a clear violation of their ethical duties," Blanche said.
The complaint specifically names Judge Patrick Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, along with unnamed district judges who also participated in the interviews. The Justice Department asked the Eighth Circuit's Judicial Council to investigate the judges' conduct and order Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves from Department of Homeland Security immigration cases, arguing that their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
But, whether that happens, however, is not up to the Justice Department.
Under the federal judiciary's judicial misconduct process, complaints are reviewed within the judicial branch.
The chief judge of the circuit — which for the Eighth Circuit is Steven Colloton, a Bush-appointee — would first determine whether a complaint should be dismissed or referred to a special committee for further investigation, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If a committee is appointed, it submits findings to the circuit's Judicial Council, which decides whether any corrective action is appropriate. The judiciary also notes that the misconduct process "cannot be used to obtain automatic disqualification of a judge presiding over a case" or simply challenge a judge's legal rulings. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment