Former judges seek dismissal of Minnesota bench complaint

A misconduct complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice last month against nearly every federal judge in Minnesota has prompted a formal request for its dismissal. The letter was submitted to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the District of Minnesota.

The request was signed by 174 former federal and state judges. They asked Circuit Judge Steven Colloton to dismiss the complaint and reject the government's demand that the judges recuse themselves from all cases involving the Department of Homeland Security. The retired judges argued that the current complaint is not a substitute for the established procedure used to request a judge's recusal from a specific case.

The dispute traces back to September, when several Minnesota federal judges spoke to The New York Times. They discussed the impact of Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration crackdown, on local courts. The judges cited mass arrests of non-criminals, a shortage of resources for courts and prosecutors, and the failure to follow more than 200 court orders. U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, who served as chief judge for the District of Minnesota until recently, stated that these conditions created a grave threat to the rule of law.

The Department of Justice alleged that the judges violated the federal code of conduct. The complaint claimed the judges launched a partisan press campaign and criticized the government. The Justice Department asked Colloton to order the judges to step aside from DHS cases. This action represents an escalation in the ongoing conflict between the Justice Department and the federal courts in Minnesota, where prosecutors continue to litigate cases against individuals who protested the crackdown.

Nancy Gertner, a former U.S. district judge for the District of Massachusetts, signed the letter. She noted that the government filed disciplinary charges against judges who lawfully called out misconduct, rather than addressing the government's own defiance of judicial orders. The retired judges emphasized that the original statements concerned the administration of the courts and the rule of law, subjects on which judges are permitted to speak publicly.

The New York Times article noted that Schiltz declined to comment on matters pending before him, a standard practice to maintain impartiality. Schiltz has publicly defended his remarks. Two days after the Justice Department filed the complaint, he spoke at a symposium on state law remedies at the St. Thomas School of Law. He stated that he did not violate any ethics rules.

The letter asserts that Colloton lacks the authority to force the recusal of judges from pending cases. It points to the existing legal framework for handling such requests. The 174 signatories maintain that the complaint targets the judges' lawful commentary on court operations. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will review the letter and the DOJ's complaint to determine the next steps in the process.