On Saturday, January 31, 2026, Will Chamberlain, senior counsel for the Article III Project, published an opinion piece on Fox News addressing concerns about Judge Patrick Schiltz, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and his involvement in immigration-related cases. The article raises questions regarding potential conflicts of interest due to Judge Schiltz’s donations to an immigration advocacy group.
Chamberlain’s piece highlights Judge Schiltz’s involvement in several disputes, including one concerning the proposed arrest of Don Lemon, where Schiltz allegedly delayed ruling on an arrest warrant. It also mentions a clash between Schiltz and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons over the release of a detainee.
The core of Chamberlain’s argument revolves around Judge Schiltz’s donations to the Minnesota Immigrant Legal Center (MILC). MILC provides legal representation for immigrants and also advocates for specific immigration policies. Chamberlain points out that MILC has openly criticized President Trump’s executive orders on immigration, branding them as “cruel and inhumane” in a press release from January 24, 2025.
Chamberlain argues that these donations create an appearance of impropriety, potentially violating the judicial recusal standard codified in 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. He suggests that a reasonable person might question Judge Schiltz’s ability to remain fair and impartial in cases involving immigration policies, especially those related to President Trump’s executive orders.
Chamberlain draws a parallel to a hypothetical situation where a judge who donated to the Equal Rights Campaign would oversee gay rights litigation, suggesting that a similar conflict exists when a judge donates to an open borders advocacy organization and then presides over immigration cases.
Furthermore, Chamberlain contends that district judges, including Judge Schiltz, should not be presiding over immigration detention cases at all, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which dictates that immigrants must litigate their removal proceedings before immigration courts. He notes that district courts lack jurisdiction to decide removal issues, referencing a Third Circuit case that reversed a New Jersey judge’s intervention in a deportation case.
Chamberlain concludes by stating that if Judge Schiltz adopted this position, he would not need to worry about recusal due to his MILC donations. He urges Judge Schiltz to recuse himself from cases concerning President Trump’s executive orders, and if he does not, Chamberlain suggests that higher courts will need to intervene to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Source: Fox News
