Lemon Indictment Underscores Need to Recuse Judge Patrick Schiltz
His misleading, partisan rants against the Trump administration cannot go unchallenged.
A grand jury in Minnesota has returned a federal indictment against former CNN anchor Don Lemon and three others for their participation in the storming of a St. Paul church earlier this month.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on X Friday morning that Lemon had been arrested “at my direction.” According to a statement by Lemon’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, federal agents took the alleged “journalist” into custody on Thursday evening in Los Angeles while he was covering the Grammy Awards. (LOL).
The charges—one each for conspiracy against rights, violating the FACE Act, and injuring/interfering/intimidating at a place of worship—cap a nearly two-week legal battle between the federal courts and the Trump Department of Justice while exposing the shocking political bias of the chief judge, who is presiding over the Trump administration’s sprawling effort to deport illegal aliens living in the Twin Cities.
As I explained here, Judge Patrick Schiltz has played an active role in obstructing the DOJ’s attempts to criminally charge Lemon following his breach of Cities Church on Jan. 19, when he and others terrorized worshippers during Sunday services in a hunt for an alleged ICE agent. After Magistrate Judge Doug Micko, husband of a top aide to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, refused to sign complaints for Lemon and a few others, the DOJ asked Schiltz as the chief judge of the district to reverse Micko’s decision. That request prompted a heated back-and-forth between Schiltz and the government as well as a decision by the Minnesota appellate court not to intervene despite the finding by one judge that the DOJ had clearly established probable cause for the uncharged individuals.
Schiltz refused to reverse Micko’s judgement, absurdly arguing he wasn’t sure he had the ability to do so (he did) and then challenged the DOJ to “take its case to a grand jury.” Which it did, successfully, this week.
A few video reminders of what Lemon did:
But Judge Schiltz’s behavior in the matter in addition to his financial support of a radical pro-illegal immigration activist group in Minnesota make clear he has no business presiding over any litigation related to Operation Metro Surge. Not only should the DOJ immediately seek his recusal but also file a misconduct complaint over Schlitz’s egregious political statements, some without basis, that serve no other purpose than to fuel an already dangerous situation on the ground in Minneapolis and sabotage the Trump administration’s deportation efforts there.
Perhaps the Good Judge Can House Some Illegals Himself?
After Schiltz’s first missive in which he downplayed Lemon’s conduct, Fox News reporter Bill Melugin disclosed that Schiltz and his wife had donated to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) in 2019; the judge later confirmed in a statement to Fox that he has donated to the ILCM “for many years” as part of his belief “all poor people should be able to get legal representation.”
That, however, is only one small part of what the ILCM does to help illegal immigrants beat the system and become permanent residents entitled to the same rights as all U.S. citizens such as obtaining drivers licenses. Recent news releases refer to Operation Metro Surge as “a campaign of terror” and an “occupation” by the federal government; ILCM also claims Renee Good and Alex Pretti “were murdered by the government for defending their neighbors against ICE violence in Minneapolis.”
ICE agents, the group alleges, “have brought sheer terror to neighborhoods across the state, breaking down doors, arresting people in hospitals, tear gassing students, racially profiling and abducting people of color, and threatening anyone who stands in their way. This horror and violence may be new to some, but marginalized communities have experienced it since the founding of this country.”
Not only is it alarming that any federal judge routinely contributes to such a radical organization that is now fomenting violence and lawlessness in a major U.S. city but particularly for a powerful judge handling dozens of related cases where he brazenly places his thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the group for which he is a regular benefactor. Further, Schiltz is presiding over at least three habeas lawsuits filed by immigration lawyers on the ILCM referral list. One case represents the basis for Schiltz’s accusations that Todd Lyons, the acting ICE director, violated a court order demanding a bond hearing for an illegal immigrant known as “Juan.” (Schiltz cancelled Friday’s planned hearing on the contempt allegation after the government released “Juan” per his directive.)
Put Up or Shut Up
But Schiltz’s order cancelling the contempt hearing acted again as a vehicle for the judge to promote his political narrative about the Trump administration. In a detail-free four-page appendix with case numbers only, Schiltz accused ICE of violating 96 court orders in the Minnesota district. (One would have to go to each separate case to determine the nature of the alleged violations.)
“This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs--who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” Schiltz, without evidence, wrote in his Jan. 29 order.
Shouldn’t Schiltz at the very least be required to substantiate those inflammatory claims? Or what about his separate claim in a Jan. 26 order unequivocally stating that illegal immigrants now being detained “have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done absolutely nothing wrong?” Or how about his claims of “illegal detention of many detainees by ICE” in another letter?
It is one thing for a judge to have political views and even act on them as a donor and/or supporter. It is quite another to misrepresent the facts in court orders, which is what Schiltz continues to do. Even though he undoubtedly will deny a motion to recuse—judges themselves are given first shot at any recusal motion—the DOJ should proceed accordingly. Schiltz’s partisan, inaccurate, and destructive allegations cannot go unanswered.
More from Lemon:
First it was partisan attorneys that destroyed the credibility of the professional practice of law.
Next it was partisan scientists that destroyed the credibility of the profession of science.
Now it is partisan judges destroying the credibility of the professional judicial.
This destruction of credibility of the entire professions is what resonates with me. Certainly, it makes sense to expect that there will always be some corruptive partisan hacks that have slimed their way to seats in these roles, but the professional association of the majority would have previously diminished the power of these people to prevent the destruction of credibility for their entire professional brand.
But something changed. Instead of rational and calm pragmatism dominating over the radicals, the radicals gained control and normalized the partisan behavior.
From my perspective "what changed" is explained by Helen Andrew's The Great Feminization.
I don't think we will fix this problem until and unless we fix the education system to stop indoctrinating student with the parasitic mind virus of critical theory that manifests in woke.
These Judges have completely gotten out of hand, something has to be done to prevent them from being so biased. There should be consequences for their actions as activists and allowing the system to be manipulated according to their political beliefs. If there are no repercussions of their actions then the chances of a fair trial will no longer possible. We are doomed as a country if this is not permanently changed.