The Department of Homeland Security’s top lawyer has accused a federal judge of coordinating with fellow judges to block immigration enforcement, calling the behavior a form of judicial misconduct. DHS General Counsel James Percival made the accusations after seven Minnesota federal judges sat for a joint interview published by The New York Times on Sept. 17.
The dispute centers on a major Immigration and Customs Enforcement surge in the Twin Cities that ran from December 2025 through mid-February 2026. On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz issued a written order finding that ICE had failed to comply with nearly 100 court orders during that period.
Tim Walz may want to pay attention, especially if he’s linked to any judges participating in such actions.
Judge Schiltz’s Order and the ICE Surge
Schiltz, nominated by President George W. Bush and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was direct in his order. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” he wrote. “ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”
Schiltz said his order was prompted by concern that the government’s noncompliance had clogged court dockets, heightened tensions in the city, and threatened the constitutional order. He said he believed most of the noncompliance stemmed from incompetence and understaffing rather than a deliberate effort to defy the courts. During the surge, DHS moved detainees out of Minnesota almost as fast as attorneys could file cases, according to Minnesota judges and ICE enforcement clash.
Percival’s Accusation of Judicial Conspiracy
Percival fired back on X, saying Schiltz’s published comments revealed “profound bias against DHS and the current administration” and that he had admitted to “extreme misconduct.” Percival said Schiltz had essentially acknowledged “conspiring with his judicial colleagues to thwart DHS’s immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
In a follow-up post the next day, Percival described judges “sitting by their phones ready to issue temporary restraining orders ASAP” even though “there was no emergency,” adding that the orders were issued “to prevent judges from outside Minnesota from hearing the cases.”
What the Other Judges Said, and What Comes Next
Other judges who spoke with the Times defended their actions. Judge Nancy Brasel said judges “are allowed to speak out about judicial independence” and “should, in order to keep it.” Judge John Tunheim said the government “wasn’t arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street.” Judge Eric Tostrud called Schiltz “independent, brilliant, courageous. And not faint of heart.”
The Epoch Times sought comment from the U.S. Department of Justice but received no reply before publication. With the enforcement surge now concluded and accusations of judicial coordination now public, the standoff between DHS and the Minnesota federal bench is likely to draw further scrutiny from Congress and the broader legal community.
