Matt Schwartz at the New York Times interviewed Judge Patrick Schiltz and six of his colleagues from the District of Minnesota.
I have a few reflections.
First, while Schiltz is named and quoted at length, it appears that only a few of the other six were quoted on the record. I think it is problematic when federal judges talk to reporters "off the record." They are not Publius. Article III judges are afforded lifetime tenure precisely because they should be able to voice their opinions. One of the judges admitted as much:
"We are allowed to speak out about judicial independence," said Judge Nancy E. Brasel, whom Mr. Trump appointed in 2018. "And so we should, in order to keep it."
Of course, judges are supposed to voice their opinions in, well, judicial opinions, not the New York Times. Judges should resist the urge to speak to reporters, especially without putting their names to the quotation.
Some of these interviews very well may violate the canons of judicial ethics. By hiding behind anonymity, the public--and litigants in particular--may not be aware of whether a motion to recuse is appropriate. A spokesperson from DOJ said "suggested that they [should] consider recusing themselves if they 'have made public comments on pending or related matters.'" But how will anyone know what was said?
Second, the article mentions repeatedly that Judge Schiltz clerked for Justice Scalia. It appears that then-Judge Scalia hired Schiltz as a law clerk, and then brought him to the Supreme Court after his confirmation. Why is this fact relevant? The unstated subtext is that even a conservative judicial appointee rules against Trump. But the fact that Schiltz clerked for Scalia doesn't tell us much of anything. Ed Whelan, a friend and fellow Scalia clerk, interviewed Schiltz back in May 2026. The takeaway, from my perspective, is that Schiltz had no public conservative bona fides at Harvard Law School. Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harry Edwards were ready to hire him, but Scalia did so first. Moreover, there are several Scalia clerks (not the counter-clerks), as well as Thomas and Alito clerks, who turned out to be not-so-conservative.
Schiltz might have become a remarkable judge, but his first job out of law school is a non sequitur. We need to stop pretending that an employment decision made when a person is about 25 years old defines who they are for the rest of their life. It's not. And "close" private ties count for little.
Third, the article stresses that Schiltz has close ties to the conservative legal movement.
He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1980s and has enjoyed close ties to the conservative legal establishment for decades.
I had never heard of Schiltz before the recent incidents in Minnesota. He has only ever spoken at two FedSoc events, neither of which was on a salient topic. He doesn't even seem to have been active in the Minneapolis FedSoc chapter. I'm sure a group of the establishment crowd can vouch that "he's solid," just like they did with John Roberts. To paraphrase Bubba Gump, conservative is as conservative does. Show me the receipts.
In candor, I meant to write this discussion about Schiltz several months ago when he was being feted by the press. (Whelan and I corresponded at the time about Schiltz.) I held back because I thought that the judge was thrust into the limelight, and was not doing anything to draw attention to himself. Now, the situation is different. He has sought out publicity and a glowing profile. He is no longer just the recipient of randomly drawn cases. By contrast, Judge Reed O'Connor, who was subject to a hit piece by Schwartz two weeks ago, prudently declined comment. The warm glow of the mainstream media is intoxicating. Judges should just say no.
Third, the district judges worked together and generated templates to rule against the government:
District court judges work alone, but as the number of cases ramped up, the judges recalled seeking one another's counsel, meeting regularly and consulting in running email threads. Eventually, some of their clerks made an informal spreadsheet showing whom to consult on particular legal questions. Some judges built templates of legal orders so they could respond quickly to some of the detention issues that were arising again and again.
I think one of the problems in Minnesota was that judges were issuing orders faster than the lawyers could even comply with them. The use of templates could explain the terminal velocity.
Read More
