DOJ Seeks Recusal of Two Minnesota Judges, What the Schiltz and Tunheim Motions Say

Last updated: October 22, 2026

The U.S. Department of Justice is asking two federal judges in Minnesota to step aside from separate cases after their public comments about the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement operations set off an ethics dispute with the federal judiciary.

In motions filed October 20, 2026, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. asked U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz to recuse himself from a civil case seeking to revoke a Minnesota man’s U.S. citizenship. In a separate motion, Woodward asked U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim to withdraw from a criminal prosecution accusing a South African national of voting illegally and falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.

The government argues that the judges’ interviews with The New York Times and later public remarks create a reasonable appearance of bias in cases tied to the administration’s immigration-enforcement priorities.

The motions follow a September 30, 2026 judicial-misconduct complaint in which the DOJ asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to investigate Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the newspaper and to require judges who discussed immigration matters to recuse themselves from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security.

Neither judge has been reported to have recused himself, and no ruling on either motion had been confirmed as of October 22, 2026. The motions are requests. They are not findings that either judge is biased or violated judicial ethics rules.

The dispute matters beyond the two defendants because it tests the line between judicial impartiality and a judge’s ability to speak publicly about court operations, government compliance with court orders and judicial independence.

DOJ Minnesota Judges Recusal Motions: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Filing party	United States Department of Justice
DOJ official who signed the motions	Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr.
Filing date	October 20, 2026
First judge targeted	U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz
First case	United States v. Ahmed, Civil No. 26-02536 (PJS/DTS) (civil denaturalization)
Second judge targeted	U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim
Second case	United States v. Weihmann, Criminal No. 26-175 (JRT/ECW) (alleged illegal voting by a noncitizen)
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Governing recusal statute	28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
Main DOJ argument	Public remarks create an appearance that the judges may not be impartial
Earlier related action	DOJ judicial-misconduct complaint filed with the Eighth Circuit on September 30, 2026
Schiltz motion hearing	Reportedly set for November 23, 2026
Tunheim motion hearing	No separate hearing date independently confirmed
Current status	Motions pending; no ruling confirmed as of October 22, 2026
Public compensation or claim program	None. These are court proceedings, not settlement cases

Why Is the DOJ Asking Judges Schiltz and Tunheim to Recuse?

The DOJ’s position is that statements the two judges made to The New York Times (in an article published September 17, 2026) and in later public appearances go beyond describing court administration. In the government’s view, they amount to public criticism of the administration’s immigration policy and enforcement tactics.

From that premise the DOJ draws a narrow, case-specific argument: a judge who has publicly criticized federal immigration enforcement could be seen as unable to fairly handle a case the government considers part of that enforcement effort. The two cases chosen are a citizenship-revocation suit and a noncitizen-voting prosecution.

The judges’ side, as expressed through court representatives and the judges’ own public responses, is that their comments fell within what the judicial ethics rules allow: discussing the judiciary, judicial independence, the rule of law and the strain placed on the courts. Judge Schiltz has said he was acting within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges, and he has pointed to guidance from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct issued earlier this year.

What Did the DOJ Ask Judge Patrick Schiltz to Do in the Salah Osman Ahmed Case?

The DOJ filed its motion in United States v. Ahmed, Civil No. 26-02536 (PJS/DTS), asking Judge Schiltz to remove himself from the case.

The lawsuit was filed on May 7, 2026. The United States seeks to revoke Salah Osman Ahmed’s naturalization and cancel his certificate of citizenship under the civil denaturalization provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1451.

According to the government’s filings, Ahmed pleaded guilty in 2009 to a terrorism-related material-support offense involving al-Shabaab. Whether his citizenship should be revoked is a separate legal question from whether the judge should step aside, and the allegations in the denaturalization case must be evaluated on their own.

Why Does the DOJ Say Judge Schiltz Cannot Hear the Case Impartially?

The government points to Judge Schiltz’s September interview with The New York Times, in which he discussed the strain that the winter 2025–2026 immigration-enforcement surge placed on Minnesota’s federal courts. Press reports describe him criticizing the government’s compliance with court orders and characterizing the situation as a grave threat to the rule of law. The DOJ’s October 20 motion also cites comments he made at an October 2 law-school symposium at the University of St. Thomas.

The government argues that these remarks went beyond court administration and became public criticism of administration policy, and that a judge who has taken such a position should not preside over a case that is part of the DOJ’s effort to revoke citizenship.

How Has Ahmed’s Lawyer Responded?

Daniel Gerdts, Ahmed’s attorney, called the DOJ’s arguments “contrived and baseless,” according to the Minnesota Star Tribune, and said he intends to oppose the motion. His position is that Judge Schiltz applies the law and rules of evidence equally to both sides, and that criticism of how courts function does not by itself show bias against the United States in an unrelated case.

The court has not yet decided the motion. Neither the government’s allegations nor the defense’s opposition is a judicial finding.

What Is Denaturalization?

Denaturalization is the legal process of revoking a person’s U.S. citizenship after naturalization. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451, a civil action may be brought in federal district court to revoke naturalization on grounds that include that it was illegally procured or procured by concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. In Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), the Supreme Court held that, for a naturalization to be treated as “illegally procured” because of a false statement, the false statement must have played a role in the person’s acquiring citizenship.

Because the government is asking a court to strip citizenship, the courts have long required that the government meet a demanding burden of proof in these cases. The recusal motion does not change that burden or the elements the government must prove.

Why Does the DOJ Want Judge John Tunheim Removed From the Hester Sophia Weihmann Case?

The second motion concerns United States v. Weihmann, Criminal No. 26-175 (JRT/ECW), in which the government charged Hester Sophia Weihmann with two election-related offenses.

The DOJ’s charging announcement identifies Weihmann as a 69-year-old South African national and lawful permanent resident. The government alleges that she voted illegally in Minnesota and falsely claimed U.S. citizenship in order to vote on November 5, 2024. The grand jury indictment was reported on September 24, 2026, and she pleaded not guilty at her initial appearance on September 29, 2026.

The charges are allegations. Weihmann is presumed innocent unless the government proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which Federal Voting Laws Are Involved in the Weihmann Case?

The DOJ’s charging announcement identifies two statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 611, voting by aliens. This provision generally makes it unlawful for a noncitizen to vote in an election held partly to elect a federal candidate, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), false claim of citizenship to register to vote or to vote. This provision addresses knowingly making a false claim of U.S. citizenship in order to register or vote in an election, where the claim is made in violation of federal or state law.

The DOJ’s October 20 recusal motion appears to transpose the two statutory references in its introductory description of the charges. The September 30 charging release identifies the statutes as listed above, and the indictment itself controls the precise counts.

What Did Judge Tunheim Say About Immigration Enforcement?

In the September 17 New York Times article, Judge Tunheim was quoted as questioning the government’s description of the people arrested during the immigration surge as dangerous criminals.

The DOJ argues that this statement could lead a reasonable observer to question whether he can impartially preside over a prosecution involving alleged unlawful election participation by a noncitizen. That is the DOJ’s theory of apparent bias. It is not proof that Judge Tunheim has prejudged Weihmann’s guilt, and it is not a court finding that he cannot fairly apply the law.

Criticizing an enforcement policy and deciding whether the government has proved a criminal charge are different acts. The pending motion asks the court to decide whether the former creates a disqualifying appearance in this specific case.

What Does 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) Require When the DOJ Seeks a Judge’s Recusal?

Both motions rely on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires a federal judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

This is an objective standard. The question is not whether the judge is actually biased, but whether a well-informed, thoughtful observer who knows the relevant facts would reasonably question his impartiality. A party does not have to prove actual bias. At the same time, disagreement with a judge’s views or rulings does not by itself require recusal.

Several related legal rules frame how a court will analyze the motions:

• 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) separately requires recusal where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. This is the “actual bias” provision. The DOJ’s motions are described as resting on § 455(a), the appearance standard.
• 28 U.S.C. § 144 allows a party to file a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against that party or in favor of an adverse party. It is a separate procedure from § 455 and has its own requirements.
• Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), is the leading Supreme Court decision on what counts as disqualifying bias. It holds that opinions formed by a judge on the basis of what he learns in the proceedings generally do not require recusal unless they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism that fair judgment is impossible. It also discusses the “extrajudicial source” doctrine, which asks whether the alleged bias comes from outside the case. The DOJ’s motions focus on statements made outside the courtroom, which is why this line of authority is relevant.
• Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (memorandum of Justice Scalia), illustrates the principle that recusal depends on whether a reasonable, informed observer would question impartiality, and that a justice or judge also has a duty not to step aside without good reason.
• 28 U.S.C. § 455(e) provides that a party may waive an appearance-based ground for disqualification after full disclosure, but not a ground under § 455(b).
• Timeliness. Federal courts generally expect recusal motions to be raised promptly after the facts supporting them become known. The reported timing of the DOJ’s motions, filed weeks after the September 17 article, may be addressed in the opposition papers and at any hearing.

Courts decide these motions by looking at the context, the nature of the statements, their connection to the pending case and the governing standard. Neither a news article nor the filing of a motion determines the outcome.

What Does the Federal Judicial Code of Conduct Say About Judges Speaking to the Media?

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides the main ethical framework.

• Canon 2 says a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
• Canon 3A(6) generally bars a judge from making public comments on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.
• Canon 4 allows a judge to engage in activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, including speaking, writing and teaching, so long as they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to decide impartially, demean the judicial office or interfere with judicial duties.

The practical tension is where commentary about the judiciary ends and commentary on pending litigation or political advocacy begins. The DOJ argues the Minnesota judges crossed that line by discussing enforcement policies and cases that remain active. The judges respond that discussing judicial independence, court operations and compliance with court orders is permitted, and they point to guidance from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct.

The ethics rules do not make every media interview improper, and they do not give judges unlimited freedom to comment. Context and subject matter control, especially where the comments concern litigation that may later come before the judge.

An ethics violation and a recusal ground are also different questions. A judge can be found to have complied with the Code of Conduct and still face a § 455(a) motion, and the reverse can also be true, because the two analyses use different standards.

How Is the October 20 Recusal Motion Different From the September 30 Misconduct Complaint?

The two actions are related but serve different purposes.

On September 30, 2026, the DOJ filed a judicial-misconduct complaint with the Eighth Circuit concerning Judge Schiltz, Judge Tunheim and other Minnesota federal judges who spoke to The New York Times. That complaint asks for an investigation into their conduct and requests recusal from matters involving the Department of Homeland Security. Press accounts report that it accuses the judges of unethical and partisan commentary.

Judicial-misconduct complaints are governed by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, and the judiciary’s implementing Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Disability Proceedings. Under that process, a complaint is first reviewed by the chief judge of the circuit, who may dismiss it, conclude the proceeding or refer it to a special committee. The process is aimed at judicial conduct and discipline. It does not decide the outcome of any individual case.

The October 20 filings are different. They are case-specific motions asking each judge to withdraw from one identified proceeding under the disqualification statute. A broad misconduct complaint does not automatically remove a judge from any case, and a recusal motion does not itself establish misconduct.

What Happens If Judge Schiltz or Judge Tunheim Refuses to Recuse?

Filing a motion does not automatically remove a judge. In federal practice, a § 455 motion is ordinarily decided first by the judge whose recusal is sought.

• If the judge grants the motion, the case is reassigned under the district court’s procedures and the new judge continues from the appropriate stage.
• If the judge denies the motion, the case continues before that judge. A denial of recusal is generally not immediately appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, so the usual route to challenge it is to raise it on appeal after final judgment.
• Mandamus. A party may ask the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, but mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear abuses of discretion, and courts of appeals grant it sparingly in recusal disputes.

The recusal process is also separate from the Eighth Circuit’s handling of the September 30 misconduct complaint, and the outcome of one does not control the other.

When Will the Minnesota Judges’ Recusal Motions Be Heard?

The motions were filed on October 20, 2026. Reuters reported that a hearing on the motion involving Judge Schiltz is scheduled for November 23, 2026. No separate hearing date for Judge Tunheim’s motion had been independently confirmed as of October 22. A court can also rule without a hearing. Readers should check the federal docket for scheduling changes.

What Could the Minnesota Recusal Dispute Mean for Immigration and Election Cases?

The immediate effect is limited to the two cases. If the motions are granted, the cases would proceed before other judges. If they are denied, the current judges remain assigned unless a later ruling changes that.

The motions do not change immigration law, naturalization requirements, federal voting statutes or the charges against Weihmann, and they do not establish that either defendant is guilty or that either judge is biased.

The wider significance is institutional. The dispute asks how much public commentary federal judges may offer about court operations and government compliance with court orders, and whether the government may use recusal motions to challenge judges who have spoken publicly. It also illustrates the difference between challenging a judge’s rulings, which is done through appeal, and seeking disqualification based on an appearance of partiality, which is done through § 455 or § 144.

Minnesota Judges Recusal Motions: Key Dates

Date	Event
Winter 2025–2026	Federal immigration-enforcement operations put significant pressure on Minnesota’s federal courts
May 7, 2026	United States files the denaturalization suit against Salah Osman Ahmed
September 17, 2026	The New York Times publishes its article featuring Minnesota federal judges
September 24, 2026	Grand jury indictment reported in the Weihmann case
September 29, 2026	Weihmann pleads not guilty at her initial appearance
September 30, 2026	DOJ files a judicial-misconduct complaint with the Eighth Circuit
October 2, 2026	Judge Schiltz speaks at a University of St. Thomas law-school symposium, cited in the DOJ motion
October 20, 2026	DOJ files recusal motions against Judges Schiltz and Tunheim
November 23, 2026	Reported hearing date for the Schiltz recusal motion
As of October 22, 2026	No ruling on either recusal motion confirmed

Frequently Asked Questions About the DOJ Minnesota Judges Recusal Motions

Why is the DOJ asking Judge Patrick Schiltz to recuse?

The DOJ argues that Judge Schiltz’s public remarks about immigration enforcement and government compliance with court orders create a reasonable appearance of bias in the government’s effort to revoke Salah Osman Ahmed’s citizenship.

Why is the DOJ asking Judge John Tunheim to recuse?

The DOJ argues that Judge Tunheim’s public comments about the people arrested during Minnesota’s immigration surge could cause a reasonable observer to question his impartiality in the criminal prosecution of Hester Sophia Weihmann.

Have the Minnesota judges been removed from their cases?

No removal or recusal had been confirmed as of October 22, 2026. A motion does not automatically disqualify a judge.

What is 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)?

It is the federal statute requiring a judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Courts apply an objective, reasonable-observer standard to the facts of each case.

What is the difference between § 455(a), § 455(b) and § 144?

Section 455(a) covers situations where impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Section 455(b) lists specific grounds, including personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Section 144 is a separate procedure that starts with a party’s timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias.

Is the September 30 misconduct complaint the same as the October 20 recusal motions?

No. The September 30 complaint asks the Eighth Circuit to investigate alleged misconduct and seeks broader recusal from DHS-related matters. The October 20 motions ask for recusal in two specific cases.

Are federal judges allowed to speak to the media?

Yes, within limits. Judges may discuss the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, but the Code of Conduct generally bars comment on the merits of pending or impending cases.

What charges does Hester Sophia Weihmann face?

The DOJ says she is charged with voting by an alien under 18 U.S.C. § 611 and making a false claim of citizenship in order to vote under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f). She pleaded not guilty, and the charges remain allegations.

What is happening in the Salah Osman Ahmed case?

The United States seeks to revoke Ahmed’s naturalization and cancel his certificate of citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451, citing his 2009 guilty plea to a terrorism-related offense. The October 20 motion asks Judge Schiltz to step aside from that civil case.

Who decides whether the judges must step aside?

Ordinarily the judge whose recusal is sought decides the motion first. If it is denied, review is generally through an appeal after final judgment or, in rare cases, a petition for mandamus.

When will the motions be decided?

A hearing on the Schiltz motion was reported for November 23, 2026. No hearing date for the Tunheim motion was independently confirmed, and no ruling had been identified as of October 22, 2026.

Do the motions prove the judges are biased?

No. The DOJ alleges that the judges’ public remarks create an appearance of bias. The motions have not resulted in any finding of misconduct or partiality.

Related Reading on AllAboutLawyer.com

• Duluth Public Schools vs. Department of Homeland Security, ICE School Enforcement Lawsuit
• Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Voter-Roll Checks, What the Ruling Means for Voters and Their Privacy
• Ilhan Omar’s Lawyers Demand Return of Seized Property, Allege Federal Agents Ignored Judge’s Restrictions in Home Search

Sources

1. DOJ motion to disqualify Judge Patrick Schiltz: United States v. Ahmed, Civil No. 26-02536 (PJS/DTS), Document 12, filed October 20, 2026: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnpworwdwpw/10212026mn_ahmed.pdf
2. DOJ motion to disqualify Judge John Tunheim: United States v. Weihmann, Criminal No. 26-175 (JRT/ECW), Document 17, filed October 20, 2026: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgvodlrxkpd/10212026mn_WEIHMANN.pdf
3. DOJ judicial-misconduct complaint filed with the Eighth Circuit, September 30, 2026: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2026-09/complaint_of_judicial_misconduct_file_stamped.pdf
4. DOJ announcement of the misconduct complaint: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-alleging-mn-judges-made-improper-and
5. DOJ charging announcement, federal grand jury indictment of ten foreign nationals for voter fraud in Minnesota: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/federal-grand-jury-indicts-ten-foreign-nationals-voter-fraud-minnesota-elections
6. 28 U.S.C. § 455, Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section455&num=0&edition=prelim
7. 28 U.S.C. § 144, Bias or prejudice of judge: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section144&num=0&edition=prelim
8. 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter16&num=0&edition=prelim
9. 18 U.S.C. § 611, Voting by aliens: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section611&num=0&edition=prelim
10. 18 U.S.C. § 1015, Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1015&num=0&edition=prelim
11. 8 U.S.C. § 1451, Revocation of naturalization: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1451&num=0&edition=prelim
12. Code of Conduct for United States Judges (Canons 2, 3 and 4): https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-conduct-united-states-judges
13. Eighth Circuit judicial complaint information: https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/judicial-complaints
14. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994); Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017); Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 541 U.S. 913 (2004)
15. Press coverage of the filings and the judges’ responses: Reuters; The New York Times (September 17, 2026); Minnesota Star Tribune; Politico

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. The DOJ’s allegations against the judges are not findings of misconduct or bias, and the charges against Hester Sophia Weihmann remain allegations. Outcomes depend on the courts’ rulings and the record in each case. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.