2026-10-22T16:15:16-04:00 / 福克斯新闻网
法官帕特里克·希尔茨此前对福克斯新闻数字频道表示，不存在回避理由
作者：亚历克·舍梅尔 福克斯新闻
发布于 2026年10月22日 美国东部时间下午4:15
司法部就《纽约时报》采访事件对明尼苏达州法官提起行为失当投诉
代理副司法部长特伦特·麦科特在《周日美国之夜》节目中谈及司法部针对明尼苏达州联邦法官就《纽约时报》采访事件提起的行为失当投诉。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/0fb1c344-347d-4cd0-9016-2c488dc8cdbf
收听本文
6 分钟
两名明尼苏达州联邦法官罕见地公开向《纽约时报》批评特朗普政府的移民打击政策，如今他们正反对政府取消其审理移民执法案件资格的努力。
其中一名法官帕特里克·希尔茨正在监督司法部试图剥夺萨拉赫·奥斯曼·艾哈迈德美国公民身份的案件，这名索马里裔男子2009年因加入青年党并为恐怖分子提供物质支持而认罪。另一名法官约翰·图恩海姆则正在审理一起针对南非国民的诉讼，该男子被控虚假声称拥有美国公民身份并在2024年大选中非法投票。司法部分别提交动议要求希尔茨和图恩海姆回避，辩称他们参与《纽约时报》报道批评唐纳德·特朗普总统的“地铁突袭行动”一事，让人质疑他们能否公正审理相关案件。
“司法公正对于确保公众对国家司法系统的信任至关重要，”司法部本周在X平台发布的一份声明中表示。“希尔茨法官和图恩海姆法官在近期一篇带有强烈党派倾向的《纽约时报》文章中接受公开采访，加上希尔茨法官随后发表的公开评论，无疑让人质疑他们在这些案件中能否保持公正。”
奥巴马任命的法官在特朗普反武器化资金案中被指控行为失当
2026年1月13日，美国明尼阿波利斯南部一处住宅搜查行动外的联邦执法人员。（维克多·J·布鲁 摄/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
司法部正式提出回避要求之前，福克斯新闻数字频道上月披露了明尼苏达州联邦法官之间不同寻常的幕后协调情况，当时法官们正应对政府执法行动引发的大量移民案件。此前希尔茨和图恩海姆是9月接受《泰晤士报》采访的7名明尼苏达州联邦法官中的两位。希尔茨接受了约90分钟的采访，他称政府对该行动的处理对法治构成“严重威胁”，而图恩海姆则向《泰晤士报》表示，执行政府移民打击政策的特工主要抓捕的并非危险罪犯。
早在9月《泰晤士报》报道发布时，司法部就曾提出，公开讨论政府移民案件的法官可能需要回避。上月，司法部对希尔茨、图恩海姆和其他参与《泰晤士报》报道的明尼苏达州法官提起司法行为失当投诉，指控他们违反司法伦理规则，并要求第八巡回上诉法院展开调查。司法部长托德·布兰奇称他们的行为“损害了公众对明尼苏达州公正司法系统的信心”。
2026年4月7日，代理司法部长托德·布兰奇在罗伯特·F·肯尼迪司法部大楼的新闻发布会上发言。（盖蒂图片社）
“令人惊讶的是，现任联邦法官竟接受公开采访抨击本届政府的政策，而非在法庭上作出裁决，”司法部发言人9月对福克斯新闻数字频道表示。“已就待决或相关事项发表公开评论的法官，应考虑今后是否有必要回避。”
“最恶劣”法官破坏特朗普移民议程，国土安全部高级官员称
涉事《泰晤士报》报道披露，希尔茨、图恩海姆和其他处理大量“地铁突袭行动”案件的明尼苏达州法官定期会面、通过持续的电子邮件线程沟通，并使用法院书记员创建的非正式电子表格来确定可就 recurring 法律问题咨询的法官。首席法官埃里克·托斯特鲁德此前对福克斯新闻数字频道表示，尽管如此，每位法官仍独立裁决分配给自己的每一起案件。
“归根结底，我们每个人都独立决定了分配给我们的每一份请愿书的是非曲直，”托斯特鲁德当时说道。
但司法部指控希尔茨和其他法官“公开”站在了特朗普政府驱逐议程的斗争一边。
“一名法官若公开站在移民执法这一政治问题的一方，就不能再审理涉及司法部一项关键移民举措的案件：启动司法部历史上规模最大的剥夺公民身份行动，以恢复美国公民身份的可信度和完整性，”副司法部长斯坦利·伍德沃德写道。
本周福克斯新闻数字频道联系希尔茨时，他拒绝就司法部要求其回避的新举措置评。但9月福克斯新闻数字频道询问他是否有可能回避时，希尔茨辩称不存在让他退庭的理由——并指出司法部并未要求他这样做。
特朗普政府的移民推动推动移民海关执法局创下机构历史最大逮捕月
“我看到政府暗示我可能需要在移民案件中回避，但目前还没有人指出任何我需要回避的理由，这想必就是司法部尚未要求我回避的原因，”希尔茨当时说道。
“无论是在《纽约时报》的文章中，还是在其他任何地方，我都没有评论过某一特定案件的是非曲直，”他继续说道。“相反，我一直在为法治辩护，其中一个组成部分就是遵守法院命令。这并不是需要回避的理由。”
图恩海姆未回复福克斯新闻数字频道的置评请求。
2025年1月14日，人们走过纽约市曼哈顿中城西侧的52层摩天大楼《纽约时报》大楼。（阿尔·德拉 摄/盖蒂图片社）
传统基金会高级法律研究员、前联邦检察官和军事法官查尔斯·“卡利”·斯蒂姆森对福克斯新闻数字频道表示，法官通常应避免公开评论可能与待审案件相关的事项。
“这些法官做了极其不妥的事情，那就是接受任何报纸的采访，更不用说《纽约时报》了，”斯蒂姆森说。“这是大忌。”
州最大清真寺领袖的驱逐斗争出现戏剧性转折，特朗普政府取得重大胜利
当被问及如果仅以《纽约时报》的采访为依据他会怎么做时，斯蒂姆森表示他会主动回避。
“如果仅依据《纽约时报》的采访……我会主动回避，”斯蒂姆森说道，他指出回避仅针对当前特定案件，而非未来所有裁决相同原则的案件。
法官席上的法槌。（iStock）
不过斯蒂姆森提醒称，回避动议让法官处于一种不寻常的境地，即实际上要评判自身的公正性，并表示在没有完整案卷的情况下，预测任何一项动议最终应如何裁决都是不合适的。
订阅获取政治新闻简报
下载福克斯新闻应用程序
如果任何一名法官拒绝司法部的要求，斯蒂姆森表示政府可向第八巡回上诉法院寻求复审，由三名法官组成的合议庭将裁定政府是否达到了回避的法律标准。
司法部周四除公开声明外未进一步置评。司法部发言人也未回复福克斯新闻数字频道关于如果希尔茨或图恩海姆拒绝回避动议，司法部是否会上诉的问题。
亚历克·舍梅尔是福克斯新闻数字频道政治记者，原籍北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市，现居住在华盛顿特区-巴尔的摩都会区。
DOJ moves to boot two federal judges from immigration cases over remarks to media: ‘Extraordinarily imprudent’
2026-10-22T16:15:16-04:00 / Fox News
Judge Patrick Schiltz previously told Fox News Digital there was no basis for recusal
By Alec Schemmel Fox News
Published October 22, 2026 4:15pm EDT
DOJ files misconduct complaint against Minnesota judges over New York Times interview
Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter discusses the DOJ’s misconduct complaint against Minnesota federal judges over a New York Times interview on ‘Sunday Night in America.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/0fb1c344-347d-4cd0-9016-2c488dc8cdbf
Listen to this article
6 min
Two Minnesota federal judges who took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown to the New York Times are now fighting the administration’s efforts to disqualify them from cases involving immigration enforcement.
One of those judges, Patrick Schiltz, is overseeing the Justice Department’s effort to strip U. S. citizenship from Salah Osman Ahmed, a Somali-born man who pleaded guilty in 2009 to providing material support to terrorists after joining al- Shabaab. The other, John Tunheim, is presiding over the prosecution of a South African national accused of falsely claiming U. S. citizenship and illegally voting in the 2024 election. The Justice Department filed separate motions asking Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves, arguing that their participation in the New York Times report criticizing President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge has raised questions about whether they can fairly preside over the cases.
“Impartiality is imperative to ensuring public trust in our Nation’s judiciary,” the Justice Department said in a statement posted to X this week. “Judge Schiltz’s and Judge Tunheim’s on-the-record participation in a recent highly partisan New York Times Article, along with Judge Schiltz’s subsequent public comments, unquestionably calls into doubt whether they can be impartial in these cases.”
OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE AT CENTER OF TRUMP’S ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND CASE HIT WITH MISCONDUCT CLAIM
A federal law enforcement agent outside a home during a raid in south Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026.(Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Justice Department’s formal recusal demand follows reporting by Fox News Digital last month detailing unusual behind-the-scenes coordination among Minnesota’s federal bench as judges confronted a massive influx of immigration cases stemming from the administration’s enforcement operation. The report came after Schiltz and Tunheim were among seven Minnesota federal judges who spoke with the Times in September about Operation Metro Surge. Schiltz sat for a roughly 90- minute interview during which he described the administration’s handling of the operation as having created a “grave threat to the rule of law,” while Tunheim suggested to the Times that agents carrying out the administration’s immigration crackdown were not primarily apprehending dangerous criminals.
DOJ had already raised the prospect that judges who publicly discussed the administration’s immigration cases might need to step aside when the Times report was released in September. Last month, DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Schiltz, Tunheim and other Minnesota judges who participated in the Times report, accusing them of violating judicial ethics rules and asking the Eighth Circuit to investigate. Attorney General Todd Blanche said their conduct had “undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota.”
Federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz after an oath of citizenship ceremony.(David Brewster/Star Tribune via Getty Images)
“It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench,” a Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital in September. “Judges who have made public comments on pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted going forward.”
‘WORST OF THE WORST’ JUDGES ARE SABOTAGING TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION AGENDA, TOP DHS OFFICIAL SAYS
The Times report in question revealed that Schiltz, Tunheim and the other Minnesota judges handling the flood of Operation Metro Surge cases regularly met, communicated through running email threads and used an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks to identify judges to consult about recurring legal questions. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud previously told Fox News Digital that the judges nevertheless independently decided every case assigned to them.
“The bottom line is that each of us made an independent decision with respect to the merits of each and every petition we were assigned,” Tostrud said at the time.
The Justice Department, however, has accused Schiltz and the other judges of “publicly” taking sides in the ongoing battle over Trump’s deportation agenda.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks during a news conference at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on April 7, 2026.(Getty Images)
“A judge who has publicly taken sides on the political issue of immigration enforcement cannot then preside over a case concerning one of the Justice Department’s key immigration initiatives: pursuing the largest denaturalization effort in Department history to restore trust and integrity in U.S. citizenship,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward wrote.
Schiltz declined to comment on the Justice Department’s new effort to disqualify him when reached by Fox News Digital this week. But when Fox News Digital asked him about the possibility of recusal in September, Schiltz argued there was no basis for him to step aside — and pointed to the fact that DOJ had not asked him to do so.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S IMMIGRATION PUSH FUELS ICE’S BIGGEST ARREST MONTH IN AGENCY HISTORY
“I have seen suggestions from the Administration that I might have to recuse in immigration cases, but no one has yet identified any basis for my recusal, which is presumably why the Justice Department has not asked me to recuse,” Schiltz said at the time.
“Neither in the New York Times article nor anywhere else have I commented on the merits of a particular case,” he continued. “Instead, I have spoken in defense of the rule of law, a component of which is compliance with court orders. That is not a cause for recusal.”
Tunheim did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
People walk past The New York Times Building, a 52-story skyscraper on the west side of Midtown Manhattan on January 14, 2025, in New York City.(Al Drago/Getty Images)
Charles “Cully” Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation who previously served as a federal prosecutor and military judge, told Fox News Digital that judges ordinarily avoid publicly commenting on matters that could intersect with cases before them.
“These judges did something extraordinarily imprudent, and that is to talk to any newspaper, much less the New York Times,” Stimson said. “That was a big no-no.”
STATE’S LARGEST MOSQUE LEADER’S DEPORTATION FIGHT TAKES DRAMATIC TURN AS TRUMP ADMIN SCORES MAJOR WIN
Asked what he would do if the New York Times interviews were the only facts at issue, Stimson said he would step aside.
“If we were to just go off of the New York Times interview … I would recuse myself,” Stimson said, noting the recusal would only be from the particular case at issue as opposed to all future cases adjudicating the same principles.
A gavel sits on a judge’s bench as people leave court.(iStock)
Stimson cautioned, however, that recusal motions put judges in the unusual position of effectively judging their own impartiality and said it would be inappropriate to predict how either motion should ultimately be resolved without the complete record.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
If either judge denies DOJ’s request, Stimson said the government could seek review from the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel would determine whether the government has met the legal standard for recusal.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
DOJ declined to comment further Thursday beyond its public statement. A DOJ spokesperson also did not answer Fox News Digital’s question about whether the department would appeal if Schiltz or Tunheim denies the recusal motions.
Alec Schemmel is a Politics Reporter for Fox News Digital who is originally from Charlotte, North Carolina but now resides in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore Metro Area.
发表回复