Skip to content

Crime & JusticeDeveloping

Justice Department asks two Minnesota judges to step aside from immigration cases

By

Coverage spectrum

Covered by 3 outlets, mostly right-leaning (67%).

3 articles in total. The spectrum counts each outlet once and leaves opinion out. How we measure bias

The Justice Department has asked federal judges John Tunheim and Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota to step aside from immigration cases, according to CBS News, The Washington Times and the Washington Examiner. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed the motions, which cite comments the judges made to the New York Times in September about administration immigration policy. The department argues those remarks show the judges have formed opinions and raise questions about their impartiality. The cases include a criminal charge of illegally voting as a noncitizen and an administration effort to strip a Minnesota man of citizenship. On Sunday, Judge Ana Reyes rejected a similar department motion in a separate case, accusing the department of selective quotation.

Headline and summary written by Mantle’s AI from the coverage below, under published rules. How this works

What happened

Key points

Each point shows who reports it, from Far Left to Far Right.

  1. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed motions to disqualify U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim from immigration-related cases.

    Reported byLeft1Right2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Left
    CBS News
    Right
    The Washington Times, Washington Examiner

  2. The Justice Department says the judges’ comments to the New York Times in September show they have formed opinions on administration immigration policy.

    Reported byLeft1Right2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Left
    CBS News
    Right
    The Washington Times, Washington Examiner

  3. The cases include a criminal charge of illegally voting as a noncitizen and an administration effort to strip a Minnesota man of U.S. citizenship.

    One side only: the rightReported byRight2See the outletsHide the outlets
    Right
    The Washington Times, Washington Examiner

  4. Judge Ana Reyes rejected a similar Justice Department motion on Sunday, accusing the department of using selective quotations.

    One outletCBS News· Left

What is contested

Where accounts differ

Points the coverage does not agree on, and who says what.

  • The judges’ remarks to the New York Times raise questions about their impartiality.

    The Justice Department says the remarks show the judges have formed opinions on administration immigration policy. In a separate case, Judge Ana Reyes rejected a similar department motion as baseless and accused the department of selective quotation, according to CBS News.

How each side tells it

Compare views

Every side reports that Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward moved to disqualify two Minnesota judges over their comments to the New York Times. Right-side outlets frame it as the department trying to bar judges after remarks about Trump; the left-side outlet calls it an escalation of a campaign against judges.

  • the left

    1 outlet

    CBS’s headline presents the filings as a top official asking judges to step aside, and its excerpt places them within an escalating campaign against judges.

    Top DOJ official asks judges to step aside from immigration cases
    CBS NewsLeftAll left-leaning headlines

  • the center

    No coverage yet

    No center outlet that Mantle follows has covered this story yet. That absence is part of the picture.

  • the right

    2 outlets

    Both right-side headlines frame the filings as the Justice Department trying to remove judges after comments about Trump, with The Washington Times using the sharper verb boot.

    DOJ tries to Loaded verb“boot”“Boot” describes forcibly removing a judge, while the filing asks for a recusal.More neutral: asks to removeDisagree with this highlight? judge who criticized Trump on immigration from hearing noncitizen voting case
    The Washington TimesRightAll right-leaning headlines

The words they chose

Language to notice

Words that carry a judgement beyond the facts. Tap a highlighted word anywhere on the page to see why.

  • Left0

    No loaded words in its own voice.

  • Center

    Has not covered this story.

  • Right1

    boot

In the outlets’ own words

  • Loaded verb

    bootMore neutral: asks to remove

    “Boot” describes forcibly removing a judge, while the filing asks for a recusal.

    DOJ tries to boot judge who criticized Trump on immigration from hearing noncitizen voting case

    Used byThe Washington Times (Right)

Words quoted from someone else (1)Hide the quoted words

Loaded words that outlets reported someone else saying. They show what was said, not how the outlet chose to say it.

  • Delegitimizing label

    Quoted

    headline-chasing juristMore neutral: a judge the department says has sought publicity

    The label dismisses the judge as seeking publicity, a motive the article reports from the department without evidence.

    …casting a ballot as a noncitizen, saying he's shown himself to be a headline-chasing jurist.

    Quoted byThe Washington Times (Right)

    These are Justice Department’s words. The outlets are reporting them.

See the full language guide

See for yourself

Side by side

What each side leads with and what it leaves out. Open a side to read its headlines.

From the left

1 outlet

Leads with

  • Associate AG Stanley Woodward’s rank
  • pattern of DOJ challenges to judges
  • Judge Reyes’s rejection of a similar motion
See the headline from the leftHide the headlines
  • CBS NewsLeft

    Top DOJ official asks judges to step aside from immigration cases

    A top official at the Justice Department is attempting to disqualify two Minnesota federal judges from a pair of cases related to immigration.

    Read at CBS News (opens in a new tab)

From the center

0 outlets

No center outlet that Mantle follows has covered this story yet. That absence is part of the picture.

From the right

2 outlets

Leads with

  • judges’ New York Times comments
  • the department’s impartiality argument
  • the immigration cases at stake
See the 2 headlines from the rightHide the headlines
  • Washington ExaminerRight

    DOJ tries to bar Minnesota judges from immigration cases after comments about Trump

    The Justice Department is seeking to remove two federal judges in Minnesota from separate immigration-related cases, arguing that comments they made to the New York Times about immigration enforcement raise questions about their impartiality. …

    Read at Washington Examiner (opens in a new tab)
  • The Washington TimesRight

    DOJ tries to Loaded verb“boot”“Boot” describes forcibly removing a judge, while the filing asks for a recusal.More neutral: asks to removeDisagree with this highlight? judge who criticized Trump on immigration from hearing noncitizen voting case

    The Justice Department has filed a motion to have U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota recuse himself from hearing a criminal case charging a man with illegally casting a ballot as a noncitizen, saying he's shown himself to be a Delegitimizing label“headline-chasing jurist”The label dismisses the judge as seeking publicity, a motive the article reports from the department without evidence.More neutral: a judge the department says has sought publicityThese are Justice Department’s words. The outlet is reporting them.Disagree with this highlight?.

    Read at The Washington Times (opens in a new tab)

Articles you open from here build My Mix, a private picture of how your reading spreads across the spectrum, kept on this device. What is My Mix?

The left is Far Left and Left together. The right is Right and Far Right together. Every outlet keeps its own five-point rating.

Who reported it when

How the coverage built up

  • Left

    33 min later

    Its first report, Oct 21, 4:11 PM EDT

  • Center

    No report yet

    From the outlets Mantle follows

  • Right

    First to report

    The Washington Times, Oct 21, 3:39 PM EDT

See the order the outlets reported inHide the order
  1. The Washington TimesRightOct 21, 3:39 PM EDT
  2. CBS NewsLeftOct 21, 4:11 PM EDT
  3. Washington ExaminerRightOct 22, 8:17 AM EDT

Times are the ones the outlets published in their own feeds, in Eastern time. Opinion is left out.

Read next

Help someone else find the truth beneath the surface

Most people see one side of a story. Share this one, so they can see how every side is telling it and decide for themselves.

Email it

Seen a mistake? Tell us what is wrong with this page