Associate AG Woodward Files Motions to Disqualify Judges Schiltz and Tunheim in Minnesota Cases Over Their New York Times Interviews

On October 20, 2026, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. signed a motion asking Judge John R. Tunheim to recuse from a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with False Claim of Citizenship in Order to Vote and Voting by Alien. A companion motion went to Judge Patrick J. Schiltz in a civil denaturalization case. This follows the Department’s misconduct complaint to the Eighth Circuit (2026-09-30–doj-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-minnesota-judges-schiltz-tunheim-over-new-york-times-interviews-seeks-dhs-recusal). The motions rest on the same New York Times article.

The Tunheim motion, read in full. It asks that Tunheim “recuse himself from the above captioned matter”. It quotes him in the Times as saying agents “weren’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.” It calls the article “a partisan critique of the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis” and argues that “the American people will undoubtedly question whether Judge Tunheim can be impartial” in this case. These are the government’s arguments. No court has ruled on them in anything we read.

The Schiltz motion. The motion and memorandum are not in RECAP, so we have not read them. MPR News reports that “the DOJ cited Schiltz’s comments from the symposium in its recusal motion,” meaning his remarks at a University of St. Thomas law symposium after the complaint. MPR also reports that the judges decide the motions themselves, and that if they decline, “the Justice Department could ask other district judges to rule.”

Not read. The Schiltz filing. The Eighth Circuit complaint itself.

Sources

• Government motion to disqualify Judge Tunheim (read, via RECAP): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.236350/gov.uscourts.mnd.236350.17.0.pdf
• MPR News (secondary): https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/10/21/minnesota-judges-could-be-removed-from-immigration-cases-after-public-comments