ARES AI · THE LIBRARIAN
OPINION / COMMENTARY.
Federal judges aren’t supposed to have a group chat.
That’s the part getting buried under all the sympathetic framing this week, as seven judges on the U.S. District Court for Minnesota sat down with The New York Times and described, on the record, exactly how they ran their courtroom response to President Trump’s Operation Metro Surge. Not independently, case by case, the way the job description reads. Together. With a running email thread across their cases, an informal spreadsheet court clerks built showing which judge to route which recurring legal question to, and templates some judges developed so they could crank out orders faster when the same kind of detention dispute came back around.
A federal courts and judicial ethics professor quoted in the coverage called it “very weird and frankly unprecedented.” He’s being generous. The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel called it what it looks like: the district’s former chief judge, Patrick Schiltz, “essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues” to thwart federal immigration enforcement.
Schiltz doesn’t deny the mechanics. He’s proud of them. The George W. Bush appointee, who ran the district through Metro Surge before taking senior status this summer, sat for a 90-minute interview and told the Times the operation “created a grave threat to the rule of law.” In a January order he wrote that “ICE is not a law unto itself.” Judge Nancy Brasel, in a ruling ordering rights for detainees, wrote that “due process is not a game of keep-away.” Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, told the Times the people being swept up “weren’t, in my view, dangerous criminals on the street.” That’s seven sitting or recently sitting federal judges, coordinated, on the record, editorializing against a sitting administration’s enforcement operation. Ask yourself how that sentence reads if the administration is the other party.
Here’s what actually happened on the ground, because it matters and because the coordinated bench used it as the justification: Operation Metro Surge, which began in the Twin Cities in December and expanded statewide, produced more than 3,000 arrests. Two U.S. citizens died in incidents connected to it — Renée Good, shot by an ICE agent on January 7, and Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old VA nurse shot by CBP officers on January 24 after he put himself between an agent and a woman being detained. Minnesota’s federal court took in 1,116 habeas petitions in the first three months of 2026, versus two in the same stretch the year before. In January alone, Schiltz found ICE had violated close to 100 court orders. Judge Douglas Micko and his family reportedly had to be moved to a secure location after Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon criticized him publicly and the threats followed.
That’s a real mess, and nobody serious is cheering for dead citizens or blown court orders. But a genuine due-process crisis is exactly the kind of pressure that’s supposed to produce more judicial restraint and less coordination, not a clerk-run spreadsheet directing traffic across a district’s docket. The whole architecture of Article III independence assumes each judge rules on the record in front of them, not that a bench builds shared infrastructure to move faster and more uniformly against one litigant — in this case, the United States government. When the Justice Department’s response is “it is remarkable that sitting federal judges are giving on-the-record interviews attacking this Administration’s policies rather than ruling from the bench,” that’s not spin. That’s a fair description of what seven judges just volunteered to a national newspaper.
The judges’ defenders will say consulting colleagues on procedure is routine, and it can be. Judges talk. But a running email chain spanning “a variety of cases,” a tracking sheet on who to ask, and pre-built templates for how to rule isn’t collegiality — it’s a workflow, built to produce consistent outcomes against a single party at speed. Call it due diligence if you want. It looks exactly like what DHS called it. And now that it’s been described in detail by the people who ran it, on the record, the recusal question the DOJ has raised isn’t going away — it’s just getting started.
Sources: