Justice Department Moves to Disqualify Judge Tunheim Over ICE Criticism

The Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota on Tuesday to recuse himself from the criminal prosecution of Hester Sophia Weihmann, arguing that his public ICE criticism creates an appearance of bias. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward signed the motion. The filing does not itself remove the judge, and no decision on the request has been announced.

Weihmann is a legal permanent U.S. resident from South Africa. Prosecutors allege she illegally voted in the 2024 election. She has pleaded not guilty to charges that include voting illegally as an alien and falsely claiming U.S. citizenship to vote.

The request is tied to one case. It does not resolve the criminal charges or establish that Tunheim must withdraw from other matters.

The request is limited to Weihmann’s prosecution

The prosecution is part of a wider set of Minnesota cases involving alleged noncitizen voting. At least 11 people have been charged in the state, while a separate account of the cases describes 10 people charged the previous month. Those figures are not presented as the same count.

The recusal dispute grew out of a Sept. 17 New York Times article about Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, which included comments from federal judges about the immigration operation. Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the earlier judicial misconduct complaint alongside indictments against 10 foreign nationals on election-related offenses.

Tunheim told the newspaper that immigration officers “weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.” The administration has described its enforcement targets as the “worst of the worst.”

Woodward says Tunheim’s remarks create an appearance of bias

Woodward’s filing calls the judge a “headline-chasing jurist” and argues that his interview “tainted his impartiality.” It says judges have been cautioned against publicly commenting on issues of the day, and characterizes the remarks as unethical.

The filing also argues that federal law does not bar the Department of Homeland Security from pursuing rank-and-file illegal immigrants. It says the broader article conveyed the view of most federal judges in Minnesota that the government had overreached in its immigration enforcement.

Woodward took issue with Tunheim being quoted by name while some other judges spoke anonymously, saying it showed “his desire for favorable media attention.” He argued that the judge’s comments about whom officers arrested could affect his view of a prosecution involving federal law enforcement.

“In sum, Judge Tunheim's statements and participation in the New York Times article, at a minimum, give rise to the appearance of bias in immigration-related cases. Judge Tunheim should therefore recuse from this case.”

The motion argues that a reasonable observer could question whether a judge who viewed Weihmann as an ordinary, non-dangerous person would regard prosecution as unwarranted. That is the department’s argument; the filing is a request, not a ruling on the judge’s impartiality.

A second motion targets Schiltz’s denaturalization case

Woodward filed a companion recusal motion the same day against U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz. A George W. Bush appointee, Schiltz was Minnesota’s chief federal judge during “Metro Surge.” The case before him is the government’s effort to revoke the citizenship of Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali American man.

Ahmed pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing support to al-Shabaab and received a three-year prison sentence. In the filing, Woodward described the denaturalization effort as the department’s largest in its history, intended to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship.

Schiltz said the enforcement operation overwhelmed the courts and that federal noncompliance posed a “grave threat to the rule of law.” He said ICE had violated hundreds of court orders, while attributing most, if not all, of the noncompliance he observed to incompetence rather than deliberate defiance.

At a University of St. Thomas School of Law symposium titled “ICE versus the States: State-Law Remedies for Federal Lawlessness,” Schiltz said deportation itself was not his concern. His role, he said, was to ensure people’s rights were addressed and they were heard before being put on a plane to Texas. He described the pressure of time-sensitive detention rulings: a decision about checking his phone at a movie, or not going, could affect whether someone was sent to New Mexico or Texas.

Ahmed’s attorney, Daniel Gerdts, called the arguments “contrived and baseless” and said he intends to oppose the motion. Gerdts called Schiltz a principled judge who applies evidentiary rules equally to both sides, and questioned who the government believed would be a better choice on the bench.

The ethics complaint covers a wider group of Minnesota judges

The recusal motions followed a judicial misconduct complaint filed with the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Schiltz, Tunheim and other federal judges in Minnesota. It targets nearly the state’s entire active district bench and asks the appeals court to investigate judges’ media interviews and require those who spoke to recuse from matters involving the Department of Homeland Security.

Blanche said the complaint concerned judges’ interviews for the Sept. 17 article. A former chief judge gave a 90-minute interview, and six other judges also spoke with the newspaper, including six of the seven judges active as of last winter.

“The comments are not only political, which is a violation, but concern matters pending before the judges, a separate violation,” Blanche said.

Schiltz told MPR News in an email Tuesday that he could not discuss the complaint because the Eighth Circuit proceedings are confidential. The judges have disputed the claim that their remarks violated judicial ethics.

A February advisory opinion from the Committee on Codes of Conduct said federal judges may “'speak and write' about core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.” Schiltz told the Minnesota Star Tribune, “That is exactly what I did.”

The judges have not said whether they will recuse

Neither judge has indicated whether he will step aside. Schiltz has scheduled a hearing on his motion for Nov. 23.

Greg Sisk, a University of St. Thomas law professor, said the judges will decide their own motions. If they decline to recuse, the government could ask other district judges to rule. Charles Geyh, an Indiana University Bloomington law professor focused on judicial ethics and conduct, said the motions are intended “to essentially antagonize the judges and to square off against them in some manner.”

Experts on judicial ethics expect the administration to fail in its effort, while describing recusal motions as rare, particularly when the government files them. Stephen Gillers said government lawyers typically write privately to a judge in the rare instances when they believe recusal is warranted.

The department also sought to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., from a case concerning President Trump’s plan to redesign the golf course at East Potomac Park on the National Mall. Reyes refused to recuse on Sunday, saying the government relied on “selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion.”

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.