Patrick J. Schiltz
Role at the time: U.S. district judge responding to the misconduct complaint
Challenged the characterization
Response to this claim
The judges' public immigration-enforcement comments compromise their impartiality and warrant recusal.
“well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)MPR reports recusal motions and the Minnesota judges' responsesSchiltz's September 30 statement; October motions; Gerdts and Sisk responses
MPR distinguishes the misconduct complaint from motions in the Ahmed and Weihmann cases, and reproduces Schiltz's defense of his interviews.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
He disputes DOJ's characterization of his remarks as prohibited partisan speech, rather than defending DOJ's recusal demand.