Federal judges in Minnesota, called on to handle a multitude of cases because of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration violations and fraud in Minnesota last winter, have confessed they coordinated their responses to the legal questions they face.
And now there are being raised “questions over whether the judges were colluding” on responses to Trump administration immigration policies, or “simply sharing expertise.”
And a report at Fox News explains that there now are questions about whether judges should be recusing themselves from cases because of their public comments about an issue that’s ongoing.
Fox reported, “Federal judges in Minnesota tasked with deciding a flood of habeas petitions challenging the detention of immigrants swept up during President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge weren’t working entirely on their own — behind the scenes, they were regularly consulting one another through running email threads and developing tools to quickly handle recurring legal questions.”
The coordinated campaign was revealed by the New York Times which reported there were regular meetings, running email threads, even a spreadsheet created by clerks showing which judges to turn to for detention disputes.
If federal judges are colluding “to thwart legal proceedings related to immigration,” impeachment is not only warranted, but imperative. https://t.co/st0k85O9xb
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) September 17, 2026
Federal judges are supposed to decide cases independently. In Minnesota, judges handling separate immigration cases were also communicating behind the scenes.
The bench reportedly used meetings, running email threads, an informal spreadsheet and order templates while confronting…
— Erik Hoffmann (@TheErikHoffmann) September 18, 2026
Federal Judges in Minnesota have now been found to be colluding with one another to block Trump’s deportation policies…
This is not justice! This is nothing less than activism in their black robes!
— Hunter Eagleman™ (@Hunter_Eagleman) September 18, 2026
“The idea of a running email chain involving a variety of cases — it strikes me as very weird and frankly unprecedented,” Robert Luther III, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School whose work includes federal courts and judicial ethics, told Fox News Digital.
Consultation among judges in common, he confirmed, but each judge ultimately is responsible for independently deciding cases.
That, Luther said, makes the coordination an issue.
The report noted Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival reacted with an accusation that the former chief judge who led the district during Metro Surge “essentially” conspired “with his judicial colleagues” to thwart federal immigration enforcement.
The Department of Justice wondered why sitting judges gave extensive on-the-record interviews about their experience with the administration’s immigration operations, which continue.
Seven of the judges in the district agreed to talk to the Times about their cases, including former Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, the report said.
He complained that what happened in Minnesota was “a grave threat to the rule of law.”
A DOJ official told Fox, “It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench. If judges followed the law in adjudicating cases, there wouldn’t be an ‘overwhelming’ habeas caseload. Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward.”
Judge Eric Tostrud, who talked to the Times, said the judges were making independent decisions, but were responding to the surge in habeas petitions caused by the crackdown on illegal immigrants.
He said the coordination resulted in resolution of cases more quickliy.
The DOJ charges that judges who publicly commented on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted.
