DOJ files complaint against Minnesota federal judges for talking to the press
The Department of Justice has filed a complaint against all but one District of Minnesota federal judge for “improper and unethical” comments made to the New York Times.
The complaint levied against the seven judges are the result of a New York Times article published Sept. 17 that quoted two judges directly and others under the protection of anonymity. In the article, the federal judges detailed the many frustrations they had with cases being brought before them as a result of mass arrests during Operation Metro Surge and the toll they had on the courts. Named specifically in the DOJ complaint are Hon. Patrick Schiltz and Hon. John Tunheim. Schiltz was the article’s primary source with Tunheim also offering comment.
The DOJ seeks to have the two barred from presiding over any case involving the Department of Homeland Security.
“Our complaint alleges that federal judges in Minnesota used their official judicial office to pander to the press about immigration policies,” said Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter. “Judges who covet publicity rather than follow the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies undermine the public’s confidence in an impartial jury.”
Raleigh Hannah Levine, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law said the action taken by the DOJ could erode protections under the First Amendment.
“What the DOJ is doing is killing speech,” said Levine. “If merely speaking to the press invites a complaint, then less and less judges will speak and the public will lose out on valuable information. The First Amendment isn’t just about the right to speak, it’s about the right to hear as well.”
Levine said issues addressed in the article, including staffing shortages, case backlog, filing errors and more do not demonstrate judicial bias, as the DOJ asserts. She did say one comment attributed to Tunheim that questioned if those being brought before the court were not dangerous individuals could be interpreted as a statement of bias, but that interpretation is pretty narrow.
A statement on behalf of the judges in the District of Minnesota said those who spoke out were well within their rights to do so.
“As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, our judges were acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times,” read the statement. “Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may ‘speak and write on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence.’ Our judges acted within this capacity.”
Comments