On Tuesday, two federal judges in Minnesota faced removal motions from the Justice Department regarding immigration cases. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodard targeted Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. The department argues their public comments show they cannot be fair in these specific trials.
The government says these judges have already formed opinions on the administration’s policies.
Per the Washington Examiner, the DOJ claims the judges spoke out in a highly partisan New York Times article. They argue this behavior questions the public trust in the nation’s judiciary. The cases involve stripping citizenship from a Minnesota man and prosecuting a woman for illegal voting.
Woodard wrote that impartiality is essential for public trust in our courts. He stated the judges’ participation in that article calls their ability to be impartial into doubt. The department says allowing them to stay would make Americans question the fairness of the proceedings.
Judge Schiltz, a George W. The administration’s actions were called a grave threat to the rule of law by a Bush appointee. He once clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Tunheim, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, told the New York Times that officials were not arresting dangerous criminals.
“They weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street,” Tunheim told the New York Times.
Woodard argues a judge who takes sides on immigration cannot preside over denaturalization cases. He says the government is pursuing the largest effort in its history to restore trust in citizenship. The department claims letting Schiltz remain would undermine confidence in the integrity of American citizenship.
The Trump administration has been fighting court orders blocking its policies for nearly two years. Mike Davis, a conservative legal activist, says the Justice Department will not back down from these judges. He told the Washington Examiner that the administration has a bold and strong team ready for this fight.
“President Trump has a bold, fearless, and very strong team at the Justice Department, and they’re not going to be cowed by these Democrat activist judges,” he told the Washington Examiner.
Davis says the government is defending the separation of powers and the president’s authority. The department filed a complaint on September 30 with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. This complaint seeks the removal of the judges and an investigation into their conduct.
Judges on the 8th Circuit will now decide if the district judges violated their ethical rules. They will also determine if the judges should step down from these specific cases. In 19 of 21 emergency applications, the Supreme Court granted the administration relief during the last term.
Judge Schiltz has defended his comments about the threat to the rule of law. He argued he was speaking out about a threat to judicial independence. He stated earlier this month that he did not violate any ethics rule during a public symposium.
“I did not violate any ethics rule,” he said earlier this month during a public symposium at St.
According to the administration, winning an appeal does not fix the time lost when a policy is blocked. Lower court judges still oversee many of these lawsuits even after emergency relief is granted. Although the government can ask a judge to recuse, the court or the judge makes the final call.
This move marks another clash between the White House and the federal judiciary over immigration. The cases will now move to the 8th Circuit for a ruling on the conduct complaint. The district judges must decide if they will step aside or fight the motion to remove them.
