'Lacking merit': Judge rejects Trump admin's 'self-serving' bid to recuse from immigrant habeas case just because his wife works as lawyer on Minnesota lawsuit against DHS

A national justice successful Minnesota has forcefully rejected a petition by the Trump administration to recuse himself from an migration case.

In the underlying case, petitioner Tong X. antecedently convinced U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, a Joe Biden appointee, to bid his contiguous merchandise connected a petition of a writ of habeas corpus.

That release order came successful precocious February – astir a week aft attorneys representing the Laos nationalist filed the archetypal petition. Still, the lawsuit has lingered on. That's due to the fact that the authorities failed to comply with tribunal orders to instrumentality each his spot successful its possession and not to enforce "any caller oregon further conditions" connected his release.

On Monday, Bryan acceptable a proceeding to woody with each extant issues related to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) deficiency of compliance with the orders – and acceptable a contempt proceeding instantly afterward.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), connected behalf of DHS, moved to disqualify the justice connected the ground that his woman presently serves arsenic the solicitor wide for the authorities of Minnesota.

To perceive the authorities archer it, the judge's matrimony to Minnesota Solicitor General Elizabeth Kramer is simply a occupation due to the fact that she represents the Land of 10,000 Lakes successful a suit against "Operation Metro Surge."

In December 2025, thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began to expanse the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul for immigrants successful the monolithic roundup. Later, the Trump medication boasted this arguable run was "the largest migration enforcement cognition ever carried out."

Minnesota sued implicit the enforcement cognition successful aboriginal January.

Bryan, for his part, cited the timelines arsenic crushed capable to contradict the government's question to disqualify him from the habeas case.

"Respondents' counsel did not promptly bring this motion," the bid reads. "On February 23, 2026, the Court granted Tong X.'s unopposed Petition. The question does not fulfill the timing requirements due to the fact that it was aft the Court ordered alleviation and good aft Respondents' counsel had cognition of the undersigned's matrimony to General Kramer."

The tribunal says the substance of promptness is "especially true" successful the contiguous due to the fact that DHS did not adjacent fuss to reason – oregon adjacent respond to – the archetypal habeas petition until it was excessively late.

From the order, astatine length:

None of the circumstantial facts successful this Petition was ever contested. As it stands, the lone disputed contented successful this substance is whether Respondents tin supply documentation to amusement that Petitioner was so "released from custody with each of his property," arsenic represented (without support) by Respondents.  Given wide Eighth Circuit authority, the Court is compelled to contradict the motion.

The justice puts a good constituent connected the substance of timeliness successful 2 abstracted footnotes wherever helium explains however the DOJ attorneys progressive successful the lawsuit were good alert of his matrimony for rather immoderate time.

"[T]he undersigned and Respondents' counsel person had much than 1 casual speech successful which they spoke astir General Kramer respective months earlier March 6, 2026," 1 footnote reads. "In addition, the undersigned has made this narration wide successful different filings erstwhile recusing from assigned cases involving the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and the United States Attorney's Office."

The 2nd footnote suggests the DOJ is possibly being intentionally obtuse astir the judge's woman – but decides against endorsing specified an allegation against the government's counsel outright.

"Again, the Court presumes Respondents' counsel did not mean to connote that helium lone conscionable learned of the undersigned's matrimony to General Kramer connected March 6, 2026," the 2nd footnote reads. "Such an accusation would beryllium false."

At 1 point, the DOJ argued recusal was indispensable owed to "the substance and timing of this motion," but seemingly offered small successful the mode of explanation. The justice rubbishes this statement arsenic "imprecise."

"[W]ithout astatine slightest immoderate mentation to enactment this self-serving conclusory statement, does not found the impossibility required to beryllium excepted from the different mandatory meet-and-confer rule," Bryan chides.

In the order, Bryan besides says the DOJ forfeited the basal quality to petition for disqualification successful the archetypal spot by failing to sermon the substance with the petitioner's ain counsel first. This is different procedural barroom based connected the section rules successful the Minnesota national tribunal system.

Additionally, the bid gets adjacent to the merits – by uncovering the Trump administration's petition is "lacking merit."

Again, the order, astatine length:

Respondents' counsel lists facts successful this lawsuit that are characterized arsenic akin to those included successful the ailment successful State of Minnesota v. Noem, et al. However, each of the cited facts are wide inheritance facts regarding Operation Metro Surge that person not been disputed by Respondents successful immoderate of the astir 1,000 habeas cases filed successful this District, oregon successful immoderate of the astir 100 habeas cases assigned to the undersigned, since December 1, 2025…Respondents' counsel makes nary statement oregon mentation however the lone remaining contented successful this matter—the proviso of documentation connected Respondents' instrumentality of Petitioner's spot to Petitioner—possibly gives emergence to the quality of a conflict.

The bid goes connected to explicate however the allegations successful Minnesota's suit against DHS "are fundamentally antithetic from those successful a habeas proceeding."

"Such allegations person nary bearing connected the taxable of a habeas petition: the lawfulness of a petitioner's detention," Bryan concludes. "Accordingly, nary tenable idiosyncratic could judge that matrimony to General Kramer—who represents the State of Minnesota successful its suit astir federalism successful narration to Operation Metro Surge— affects the undersigned's presumption of habeas alleviation and documentation of Respondents' instrumentality of Petitioner's property."