‘Unprecedented’: Judges reveal behind-the-scenes coordination on Trump immigration cases

Minnesota Federal Judges Collaborated on Immigration Detention Cases, Prompting Scrutiny Over Judicial Independence

Minneapolis, MN – A New York Times investigation published this week disclosed that federal judges in Minnesota’s district court coordinated with one another to manage an unprecedented flood of habeas petitions filed by immigrants detained under President Donald Trump’s “Operation Metro Surge.” The coordination, which included a shared email thread, an informal spreadsheet for routing legal questions, and template orders, has sparked debate about whether the judges’ teamwork crossed the line into collusion or simply reflected a pragmatic response to a crisis‑level caseload.

A Surge in Detention Litigation

Under Operation Metro Surge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted mass arrests of immigrants in the Midwest, many of whom were held in detention while their legal status was contested. In the first quarter of 2026, Minnesota’s federal court received 1,116 habeas petitions challenging those detentions— a dramatic rise from the mere 12 petitions filed during the entire 2024 calendar year. The volume forced court staff to work 16‑hour days, seven days a week, as they processed the incoming cases.

“During that period the court was inundated with petitions that raised similar or identical legal questions,” said Chief Judge Eric Tostrud. “We had to find ways to respond quickly and consistently.”

How the Judges Worked Together

According to the Times report, the judges’ collaboration involved regular in‑person meetings and a “running email chain” that included all pending petitions. Court clerks created a spreadsheet that identified which judge was best suited to answer particular legal questions, and several judges drafted template orders that could be used to resolve recurring detention disputes.

“The coordination helped us resolve cases more efficiently,” Judge Tostrud explained. “Each judge still made an independent decision on the merits of the petitions assigned to him or her.”

Tostrud emphasized that the judges did not uniformly reach the same conclusions; while some cases produced identical outcomes, others resulted in different judgments.

Public Comments and Legal‑Ethical Concerns

The coordination drew criticism from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS General Counsel James Percival accused the former chief judge— Patrick Schiltz, who served during the height of the surge— of “essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues” to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

A DOJ spokesperson said the agency was “concerned that judges who make public statements about pending or related matters should consider whether recusal is warranted.” The spokesperson also noted that the DOJ had requested that judges refrain from on‑the‑record interviews regarding the operation, but several judges, including Schiltz, had already given interviews to the New York Times and Fox News.

Judge Schiltz, in a January 28 order, had warned that ICE had violated nearly 100 court orders during the surge and stated that “ICE is not a law unto itself.” The DOJ later reviewed the cases and found that in the majority of them the detainees were released on time, and in most of the remaining cases the department ultimately complied with the court’s directives, even if an additional deadline was missed.

“I am not discussing ongoing cases,” Schiltz told the Times after the Times report. “What I am saying is that the situation created a grave threat to the rule of law.”

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,” she told the Times. “And so we should, in order to keep it.”

A Legal‑Ethics View

Professor Robert Luther III of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, who has written extensively on judicial ethics, described the email chain as “very weird and frankly unprecedented.” “Federal judges can consult colleagues about procedural or evidentiary questions,” Luther said. “But each judge is ultimately responsible for independently deciding the cases assigned to them— that distinction makes the coordination significant.”

Luther also differentiated between administrative templates—commonplace in federal courts— and templates that address substantive legal matters, which he views as “something altogether different.”

The Court’s View of the Process

Chief Judge Tostrud said the court’s internal working materials, including the spreadsheet and templates, are not public. “We don’t disclose those documents,” he said. “But the coordination was essential to keep the court functioning during a time when the volume of cases was unprecedented.”

Looking Ahead

As Minnesota’s federal court continues to process a high volume of immigration petitions, questions remain about the balance between efficient case management and the appearance of judicial impartiality. The DOJ’s concerns over public commentary may lead to future discussions about recusal or procedural safeguards. Meanwhile, the judges maintain that their coordination was a practical solution to an extraordinary workload, not an attempt to influence individual decisions.

The issue underscores the broader national debate over how the federal judiciary handles politically charged immigration cases, and whether judicial collaboration can be reconciled with the ethical requirement that each judge render decisions independently.