Judge Patrick Schiltz donations to immigration group spark recusal calls

Patrick Schiltz serves as chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Schiltz has presided over several disputes relating to Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis. Recently, for instance, he became embroiled in the battle over the proposed arrest of Don Lemon after he and his anti-ICE friends allegedly stormed a St. Paul church. Schiltz absurdly delayed ruling on whether to overturn a magistrate judge’s decision not to issue an arrest warrant for Lemon, claiming that he would rule on overturning the magistrate within a week. Thankfully, Attorney General Pam Bondi has now obtained an indictment of Lemon from a grand jury, but Schiltz made things more difficult for no particularly good reason.

Federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz after an oath of citizenship ceremony. (David Brewster/Star Tribune via Getty Images)

Another clash almost occurred involving Schiltz and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons this week. Schiltz was furious that a detainee had not been released and ordered Lyons to appear for a Friday hearing with the possibility of a contempt citation in play. “The Court’s patience is at an end,” Schiltz ominously wrote. The detainee is now free, so the Friday showdown is off. It is easy to fathom how future conflict could arise, and Schiltz should not preside over some immigration-related cases.

Earlier this week, Bill Melugin of Fox News reported that Schiltz and his wife Elizabeth had donated and volunteered for the Minnesota Immigrant Legal Center (MILC). MILC provides representation for immigrants in court, as do other legal aid organizations. Schiltz acknowledged to Fox News that he and his wife have donated to MILC for a long time. He compared it to his donations to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, an organization that provides representation and services for the poor.

There is a crucial distinction between the two organizations, however. MILC does not simply ensure that immigrants are represented in court. It also advocates in favor of and against various immigration policies. For instance, it branded President Trump’s early executive orders on immigration as “cruel and inhumane” in a Jan. 24, 2025, press release. Suppose that one of those executive orders were to come before Schiltz in a case where an immigrant was challenging its legality.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents continue to conduct immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2026.  (Madison Thorn/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The judicial recusal standard is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 455. A judge must recuse when, among other things, there is an appearance of impropriety. In other words, recusal is required if a reasonable person, familiar with all relevant facts, would question the judge’s ability to be fair and impartial. This standard also appears in Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. That is absolutely the case here. Just as a judge who had donated to the Equal Rights Campaign has no business overseeing gay rights litigation, a judge who has donated to an open borders advocacy organization has no business overseeing immigration cases.

Moreover, Schiltz and his fellow district judges should not even be presiding over immigration detention cases because they are barred by statute from doing so. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 dictates that immigrants must litigate their removal proceedings before immigration courts. District courts lack jurisdiction to decide removal issues. The Third Circuit recently reversed a leftist New Jersey judge’s intervention in the case of Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil, a student at Columbia University. The district judge had enjoined Khalil’s deportation, but the Third Circuit correctly held that district courts lack jurisdiction in these cases.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If Schiltz adopted this position, he would not need to worry about recusal due to his MILC donations. He and all other district judges should stop intervening in deportation cases where jurisdiction is improper. In the meantime, Schiltz should recuse from such cases and others concerning President Trump’s executive orders that the group with which he has affiliated for many years has characterized as “cruel and inhumane.” If he doesn’t, higher courts will need to step in to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.