2026年10月2日 美国东部时间上午10:54 / 福克斯新闻
司法部长托德·布兰奇称，七名法官在案件审理期间就移民执法问题发表了不当言论
作者：伊莱恩·马伦，福克斯新闻
国土安全部总法律顾问詹姆斯·珀西瓦尔警告称“司法激进主义泛滥”，此前加利福尼亚州一名联邦法官下令释放一名MS-13谋杀嫌疑人。珀西瓦尔认为，因谋杀被通缉的人员在递解出境程序期间必须被关押在移民拘留所中。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/1b27c560-185c-4e0a-94f4-f4a1b2d43fb4
收听本文
4分钟
美国司法部要求明尼苏达州数名联邦法官退出移民案件审理，此前指控他们公开批评唐纳德·特朗普总统的移民打击政策，越过了道德红线。
起诉书指出，这些法官在相关案件仍在审理期间就特朗普政府的移民执法政策发表不当评论，损害了公众对其公正性的信任。
司法部长托德·布兰奇周三宣布，美国司法部已向第八巡回上诉法院提交司法行为不当起诉书，涉及明尼苏达州的七名联邦法官，原因是他们参与了去年9月发表的《纽约时报》采访。
“这些法官接受了媒体采访，至少是接受了《纽约时报》的采访，谈论了一些仍在审理中的案件，其方式在司法部看来明显违反了他们的道德义务，”布兰奇说。
“前所未有”：法官揭露特朗普移民案件幕后协调
托德·布兰奇，美国副检察长提名人，2月12日在华盛顿特区参议院司法委员会作证。（丹尼尔·霍尔/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
起诉书特别点名了由乔治·布什总统任命的帕特里克·希尔茨法官，以及克林顿任命的约翰·图内海姆法官，同时还有参与采访的未具名地区法官。美国司法部要求第八巡回法院司法委员会调查这些法官的行为，并下令希尔茨和图内海姆回避国土安全部的移民案件，理由是他们的公正性可能会受到合理质疑。
但无论结果如何，决定权都不在司法部手中。
根据联邦司法系统的司法行为不当程序，投诉将由司法部门内部审查。
根据美国法院行政办公室的信息，该巡回法院的首席法官——第八巡回法院的史蒂文·科洛顿，也是布什任命的官员——将首先决定是驳回投诉，还是将其移交特别委员会进行进一步调查。如果成立专门委员会，该委员会将向巡回法院司法委员会提交调查结果，由该委员会决定是否采取适当的纠正措施。司法部门还指出，行为不当程序“不能用于自动取消审理案件的法官资格”，也不能单纯质疑法官的法律裁决。
奥巴马、拜登任命的法官遭遇新抨击，特朗普移民法院冲突升级：“几乎不可能”
联邦法官帕特里克·J·希尔茨在入籍宣誓仪式后。（戴维·布鲁斯特/《明星论坛报》 via 盖蒂图片社）
美国司法部的起诉书源于2026年9月17日的《纽约时报》文章，希尔茨法官、图内海姆法官以及明尼苏达州另外六名联邦法官在文中讨论了特朗普政府“地铁突袭行动”后涌现的移民诉讼浪潮。法官们描述了人身保护令申请的空前激增，并反思了这些案件如何给法院资源带来压力，同时也表达了对政府移民执法工作某些方面的担忧。
接受了近90分钟采访的希尔茨和图内海姆的言论都被司法部起诉书专门提及。
布兰奇在上诉法院再次阻止驱逐斗争后抨击特朗普对手博阿斯伯格
司法部辩称，这些采访越过了道德红线，因为它们涉及正在进行的诉讼中的问题。起诉书引用了希尔茨的言论，他将政府的行动描述为威胁“宪法秩序”和“法治”，同时还引用了图内海姆批评政府移民逮捕行动的言论。
美国司法部指控这些言论违反了《美国法官行为准则》，因为它们公开评论正在审理的事项，并给人留下法官已经预判了可能提交给他们的问题的印象。
国土安全部2月4日宣布，在“地铁突袭行动”中，明尼苏达州已逮捕超过4000名非法外国人。（斯科特·奥尔森/盖蒂图片社）
“建国者们赋予法官独立性，是为了让他们行使判断力，而非个人意志，”美国优先政策研究所诉讼主席查德·米泽尔在X平台上写道。“我们现在看到的却是相反的情况：法官们被自身的政治意识形态奴役。当法官们身着法袍变成政客时，整个司法系统就开始崩塌了。”
米泽尔指出，过去曾有法官因与媒体的对话而被取消案件审理资格，因为这种行为“造成了存在偏见的表象”。
“2001年，托马斯·彭菲尔德·杰克逊法官在审理“美国诉微软案”期间，接受了包括《纽约时报》在内的提前披露禁令采访，”米泽尔在X平台上写道。“哥伦比亚特区巡回法院称这种行为是‘蓄意、反复、恶劣且公然的’，并将他从该案中移除。这一标准仍然适用。如今改变的是在职法官无视这一标准的意愿。”
与此同时，明尼苏达州总检察长基思·埃利森将这份起诉书归咎于特朗普政府恐吓法官的企图。
“这份起诉书与司法道德毫无关系，完全是政治报复，”埃利森在一份声明中说。“布兰奇和特朗普试图惩罚那些在“地铁突袭行动”期间裁定联邦政府行为违法的法官——包括当时政府无视数百项法院命令的无可争辩的事实——尽管有时法院也做出了有利于政府的裁决。”
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的记者，报道全国政治新闻。
DOJ moves to boot federal judges from immigration cases over NYT interview
October 2, 2026 10:54am EDT / Fox News
Attorney General Todd Blanche says seven judges improperly commented on immigration enforcement while cases were pending
By Elaine Mallon, Fox News
DHS general counsel James Percival warns of an ‘epidemic of judicial activism’ after a federal judge in California orders the release of an MS-13 murder suspect. Percival argues that individuals wanted for murder must remain in immigration detention during removal proceedings.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/1b27c560-185c-4e0a-94f4-f4a1b2d43fb4
Listen to this article
4 min
The Justice Department wants several Minnesota federal judges removed from immigration cases after accusing them of crossing an ethical line by publicly criticizing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
The complaint argued the judges improperly commented on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement while related cases were still pending, undermining public confidence in their impartiality.
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Wednesday that the Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against seven Minnesota federal judges over their participation in a New York Times interview published last September.
“These judges talked to the media, or at least The New York Times, about cases, some of which are ongoing, in a manner which the Department views as a clear violation of their ethical duties,” Blanche said.
‘UNPRECEDENTED’: JUDGES REVEAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES COORDINATION ON TRUMP IMMIGRATION CASES
Todd Blanche, nominee for U.S. deputy attorney general, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on February 12.(Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The complaint specifically names Judge Patrick Schiltz, appointed by President George Bush, and Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, along with unnamed district judges who also participated in the interviews. The Justice Department asked the Eighth Circuit’s Judicial Council to investigate the judges’ conduct and order Schiltz and Tunheim to recuse themselves from Department of Homeland Security immigration cases, arguing that their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
But, whether that happens, however, is not up to the Justice Department.
Under the federal judiciary’s judicial misconduct process, complaints are reviewed within the judicial branch.
The chief judge of the circuit — which for the Eight Circuit is Steven Colloton, a Bush-appointee — would first determine whether a complaint should be dismissed or referred to a special committee for further investigation, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If a committee is appointed, it submits findings to the circuit’s Judicial Council, which decides whether any corrective action is appropriate. The judiciary also notes that the misconduct process “cannot be used to obtain automatic disqualification of a judge presiding over a case” or simply challenge a judge’s legal rulings.
OBAMA, BIDEN JUDGES DRAW FRESH FIRE AS TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION COURT CLASHES HEAT UP: ‘ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE’
Federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz after an oath of citizenship ceremony.(David Brewster/Star Tribune via Getty Images)
The Justice Department’s complaint stemmed from a Sept. 17, 2026, New York Times article in which Judge Schiltz and Tunheim and six other Minnesota federal judges discussed the wave of immigration litigation that followed the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge.” The judges described an unprecedented influx of habeas petitions and reflected on how the cases strained court resources, while also expressing concerns about aspects of the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
Both Schiltz, who sat for a nearly 90-minute interview, and Tunheim made remarks that were specifically cited in the DOJ complaint.
BLANCHE TORCHES TRUMP FOE BOASBERG AFTER APPEALS COURT BLOCKS JUDGE AGAIN IN DEPORTATION FIGHT
The Department argued those interviews crossed an ethical line because they addressed issues involved in active litigation. The complaint cited comments attributed to Schiltz describing the administration’s actions as threatening “the constitutional order” and “the rule of law,” as well as remarks from Tunheim criticizing the administration’s immigration arrests.
The Justice Department alleged that those statements violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by commenting publicly on ongoing matters and creating the appearance that the judges had prejudged issues that were likely to come before them.
The Department of Homeland Security announced on Feb. 4 that there have been more than 4,000 arrests of illegal aliens in Minnesota under operation Metro Surge.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)
“The Framers insulated judges so they would exercise judgment, not will,” Chad Mizelle, chair of Litigation for America First Policy Institute wrote on X. “What we have now is the inverse: a bench enslaved to its own political ideology. When judges become politicians in a robe, the system starts to collapse.”
Mizelle pointed out that in the past judges have been removed from cases due to their conversations with the press, which “created an appearance of bias.”
“In 2001, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson gave embargoed interviews, including to the Times, while handling United States v. Microsoft,” Mizelle wrote on X. “The D.C. Circuit called that conduct ‘deliberate, repeated, egregious and flagrant’ and removed him from the case. That standard still applies. What has changed is the willingness of sitting judges to ignore it.”
Meanwhile Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison chalked the complaint up to be the Trump administration’s attempt to intimidate judges.
“This complaint has nothing to do with judicial ethics and everything to do with political punishment,” Ellison said in a statement. “Blanche and Trump are trying to punish the judges who ruled against federal government actions during Operation Metro Surge — including the Administration’s undisputed non-compliance at the time with hundreds of court orders — even though sometimes the court ruled with the government.”
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.