OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

DOJ Files Misconduct Complaint Against Minnesota Judges Over NYT Interview

5 sources · updated 2026-10-01
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals against federal judges in the District of Minnesota after they spoke to The New York Times about a surge in immigration-enforcement cases in the state. The complaint names Senior Judges Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee who served as chief judge until July 1, and John Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, both quoted by name, plus other judges who spoke anonymously; it asks that those who spoke recuse themselves from Department of Homeland Security matters and that the 8th Circuit investigate. Schiltz had issued a January 28 order directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop violating Minnesota federal judges’ orders in immigration-related cases and told the Times the violations “created a grave threat to the rule of law”; Tunheim said ICE was not, “in my view,” arresting “people who were dangerous criminals on the street.” Attorney General Todd Blanche said the comments were a “clear violation of their ethical duties” that “undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary”; a U.S. District Court in Minnesota spokeswoman said legal-ethics experts confirmed the judges “were acting well within the ethical rules,” citing a February Committee on Codes of Conduct advisory opinion that judges may speak on “core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 7 articles

7 of 7 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 7 of 7
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Todd Blanche, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, Justice Department, Trent McCotter, Department of Justice and attorney general
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 5 of 7
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing, complaint, misconduct complaint, news article
Credits another outlet 0 of 7
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 7
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 30, 18:01 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document within the hour, from CNBC (court filing).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage never tells readers that the interviews followed a court order telling ICE to stop defying Minnesota judges. Left-leaning coverage at CNBC reports that Schiltz had demanded ICE halt those violations and later called them "a grave threat to the rule of law." Breitbart instead says the judges admitted they are using their power to obstruct the administration's agenda, with no mention of alleged noncompliance. Without that fact, the story reads as partisan judges attacking immigration policy rather than judges talking about whether the executive obeyed the bench. Right-leaning coverage headlines "Charges" against judges for a misconduct complaint. Left-leaning coverage at The Hill says the DOJ seeks to "censure" judges who spoke to the Times. Did ICE actually violate the court orders the judges said they were defending?
Bottom line

If you read Breitbart or The Hill, you never hear that Schiltz had already ordered ICE to stop violating Minnesota court orders. CNBC is the only outlet that prints that order.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Schiltz issued a Jan. 28 order demanding ICE stop violating orders issued by Minnesota federal judges legal rulingin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The DOJ asked the 8th Circuit to recuse all seven judges who spoke to the Times from any DHS case numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • A February Committee on Codes of Conduct advisory opinion said federal judges may speak on advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • McCotter said the judges criticized the government for an emergency appeal after a judge refused to rule on a search warrant application official statementin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Attorney General Blanche said the judges talked about cases, some of which are on-going official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets called the filing a “remarkable step” and centered the Minnesota court’s defense that the judges “were acting well within the ethical rules,” citing legal-ethics experts and the February advisory opinion that permits speaking on “core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.” They treated Schiltz’s on-record warning about ICE noncompliance as a defense of judicial authority, and highlighted reporting that judges viewed many detainees as “ordinary people with homes and jobs,” not the “worst of the worst.” The New York Times noted that the attorney general accused Schiltz of “obvious bias.”
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage framed the interviews as an “unethical partisan press tour” in which judges used their office to obstruct the administration’s immigration agenda. Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said “Judges who covet publicity undermine public confidence in the rule of law” and that judges who “repeatedly and brazenly exceed their authority then launch a partisan press campaign” are themselves a “grave threat to the rule of law.” Blanche said the government, “just like every litigant in court,” has a right to a “fair and impartial” judge and “no choice but to act.” The complaint called the named judges’ remarks a flagrant violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, “overly political” and concerning “matters that are pending.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the interviews addressed alleged defiance of court orders—a “core judiciary matter” the February advisory opinion expressly allows judges to discuss—and that ethics experts and the district court say the remarks stayed inside the Code. The right’s strongest argument is that publicly characterizing live immigration dockets and ICE targeting decisions, then inviting national coverage, destroys the appearance of impartiality every litigant, including the government, is entitled to, and that the Code forbids comments on pending matters. The unresolved tension is whether those statements were protected institutional speech about compliance with judicial orders, or disqualifying political commentary on cases still before the court.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.