Federal judges in Minnesota coordinated their handling of habeas petitions during Operation Metro Surge, raising ethical concerns about their collaboration amid a surge in immigration cases.
Federal judges in Minnesota faced an unprecedented influx of habeas petitions challenging the detention of immigrants during President Donald Trump’s Operation Metro Surge. Behind the scenes, these judges were not solely working independently; they engaged in regular consultations through email threads and developed tools to efficiently address recurring legal questions.
A recent report by the New York Times revealed that this coordination among Minnesota’s federal judges included regular meetings, ongoing email discussions, and an informal spreadsheet created by court clerks. This spreadsheet indicated which judges were best suited to address specific legal inquiries. Additionally, some judges created templates to expedite the issuance of orders when similar detention disputes arose in court.
The revelations have sparked debate over whether the judges were colluding on cases related to the same immigration policies enacted by the Trump administration or simply sharing expertise to manage an extraordinary caseload. Robert Luther III, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, expressed his concerns, stating, “The idea of a running email chain involving a variety of cases — it strikes me as very weird and frankly unprecedented.” While he acknowledged that judges often consult with colleagues on procedural matters, he emphasized that each judge is ultimately responsible for independently deciding their assigned cases, making this level of coordination noteworthy.
The disclosures have also drawn criticism from the Trump administration. James Percival, General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accused the former chief judge of “essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues” to undermine federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department (DOJ) raised concerns about the decision of sitting judges to provide extensive on-the-record interviews regarding their experiences with the administration’s immigration operation.
Seven judges from the district spoke to the Times for the report, including former Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, who participated in a 90-minute interview. Schiltz refrained from discussing ongoing cases but described the situation in Minnesota’s federal court as having “created a grave threat to the rule of law.” A spokesperson for the DOJ remarked, “It is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench.” They further suggested that judges who have made public comments on pending matters should consider recusal in future cases.
Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, who was also interviewed, defended the judges’ actions, asserting that each member of the bench independently evaluated the merits of every petition assigned to them. He pointed to a significant surge in litigation, noting that Minnesota’s federal court received 1,427 habeas petitions through August of this year, a stark increase from just 12 in all of 2024. Tostrud acknowledged that many of these cases involved similar or identical legal questions, which necessitated communication among judges.
“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 stated. He emphasized that while some judges reached the same conclusions on certain legal questions, they also arrived at different outcomes on others. This communication, he argued, allowed them to resolve cases efficiently and thoughtfully, regardless of whether individual petitions were granted.
However, the specifics of what the judges were sharing behind the scenes remain unclear. Tostrud declined to disclose the contents of the court’s internal working materials, stating that documents created by judges and court staff “are not public.”
The nature of the coordination has raised questions about judicial ethics. Luther noted that while administrative templates are common in federal courts, there is a significant distinction between those and templates that pertain to the substance of a case. “Templates that deal with administrative matters strike me as entirely appropriate and commonplace in federal courts,” he said. “Templates for substantive matters — that seems like something altogether different.”
This coordination occurred amid a broader conflict between Minnesota’s federal judges and the Trump administration regarding Operation Metro Surge. Immigration litigation inundated the district during this time. In the first three months of 2026, the federal court in Minnesota received 1,116 habeas petitions, a dramatic increase from just two during the same period the previous year. Court staff reportedly worked 16-hour days, seven days a week, to manage the influx of cases.
Patrick Schiltz, who served as chief judge during Operation Metro Surge before transitioning to senior status this summer, became a vocal critic of the administration’s handling of the operation. In a January 28 order, Schiltz accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of violating nearly 100 court orders in that month alone, asserting that “ICE is not a law unto itself.”
The cases cited in Schiltz’s January list of alleged violations have largely concluded, with the Times reporting that the administration ultimately corrected many of the issues flagged by the court. The DOJ’s review indicated that in the “large majority” of these cases, detainees were released on time, and no violations occurred. In most of the remaining cases, the department stated it complied with court orders despite missing additional deadlines.
Federal judicial ethics rules generally prohibit judges from publicly commenting on the merits of pending or impending cases. However, they are permitted to explain court procedures and engage in broader discussions about the law and the legal system. The DOJ argued that judges who publicly commented on pending matters should consider recusal. Nonetheless, Schiltz maintained that he did not discuss ongoing cases, while Judge Nancy Brasel, a Trump appointee who also participated in the interviews, defended the judges’ right to speak publicly about judicial independence. “We are allowed to speak out about judicial independence,” Brasel stated. “And so we should, in order to keep it.”
In contrast, Luther expressed a different perspective on the judges’ decision to engage with the media. “Judges should be speaking through their judicial orders, not through their surrogates at The New York Times,” he remarked.
The ongoing discourse surrounding the coordination among Minnesota’s federal judges raises significant questions about judicial ethics and the balance between sharing expertise and maintaining independence in the face of a substantial caseload.
According to the New York Times, the situation continues to evolve as scrutiny of the judges’ actions persists.