Judge Dismisses Trump Administration’s Request for Recusal in Immigrant Habeas Case, Citing Lack of Merit and Conflict of Interest Claims

A federal judge in Minnesota has decisively dismissed an attempt by the Trump administration to have him removed from an ongoing immigration case.

In this case, petitioner Tong X. managed to persuade U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, to grant his immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus.

This order for release was issued in late February, approximately one week after attorneys for the Laotian national submitted their original petition. However, the case has been prolonged because the government has not adhered to court directives to return all of Tong X.’s possessions and to avoid imposing “any new or additional conditions” on his release.

On Monday, Judge Bryan scheduled a hearing to address all outstanding issues related to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) noncompliance with his orders, followed by a contempt hearing.

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), representing DHS, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Bryan, arguing that his wife currently holds the position of solicitor general for the state of Minnesota.

To hear the government tell it, the judge’s marriage to Minnesota Solicitor General Elizabeth Kramer is a problem because she represents the Land of 10,000 Lakes in a lawsuit against “Operation Metro Surge.”

In December 2025, thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began to sweep the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul for immigrants in the massive roundup. Later, the Trump administration boasted this controversial campaign was “the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out.”

Minnesota sued over the enforcement operation in early January.

Bryan, for his part, cited the timelines as reason enough to deny the government’s motion to disqualify him from the habeas case.

“Respondents’ counsel did not promptly bring this motion,” the order reads. “On February 23, 2026, the Court granted Tong X.’s unopposed Petition. The motion does not satisfy the timing requirements because it was after the Court ordered relief and well after Respondents’ counsel had knowledge of the undersigned’s marriage to General Kramer.”

The court says the matter of promptness is “especially true” in the present because DHS did not even bother to oppose – or even respond to – the original habeas petition until it was too late.

From the order, at length:

None of the specific facts in this Petition was ever contested. As it stands, the only disputed issue in this matter is whether Respondents can provide documentation to show that Petitioner was indeed “released from custody with all of his property,” as represented (without support) by Respondents.  Given clear Eighth Circuit authority, the Court is compelled to deny the motion.

The judge puts a fine point on the matter of timeliness in two separate footnotes where he explains how the DOJ attorneys involved in the case were well aware of his marriage for quite some time.

“[T]he undersigned and Respondents’ counsel have had more than one casual conversation in which they spoke about General Kramer several months before March 6, 2026,” one footnote reads. “In addition, the undersigned has made this relationship clear in other filings when recusing from assigned cases involving the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office.”

The second footnote suggests the DOJ is perhaps being intentionally obtuse about the judge’s wife – but decides against endorsing such an allegation against the government’s counsel outright.

“Again, the Court presumes Respondents’ counsel did not mean to imply that he only just learned of the undersigned’s marriage to General Kramer on March 6, 2026,” the second footnote reads. “Such an implication would be false.”

At one point, the DOJ argued recusal was necessary due to “the substance and timing of this motion,” but apparently offered little in the way of explanation. The judge rubbishes this argument as “imprecise.”

“[W]ithout at least some explanation to support this self-serving conclusory statement, does not establish the impossibility required to be excepted from the otherwise mandatory meet-and-confer rule,” Bryan chides.

In the order, Bryan also says the DOJ forfeited the basic ability to request for disqualification in the first place by failing to discuss the matter with the petitioner’s own counsel first. This is another procedural bar based on the local rules in the Minnesota federal court system.

Additionally, the order gets close to the merits – by finding the Trump administration’s request is “lacking merit.”

Again, the order, at length:

Respondents’ counsel lists facts in this case that are characterized as similar to those included in the complaint in State of Minnesota v. Noem, et al. However, all of the cited facts are general background facts regarding Operation Metro Surge that have not been disputed by Respondents in any of the roughly 1,000 habeas cases filed in this District, or in any of the nearly 100 habeas cases assigned to the undersigned, since December 1, 2025…Respondents’ counsel makes no argument or explanation how the only remaining issue in this matter—the provision of documentation on Respondents’ return of Petitioner’s property to Petitioner—possibly gives rise to the appearance of a conflict.

The order goes on to explain how the allegations in Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS “are fundamentally different from those in a habeas proceeding.”

“Such allegations have no bearing on the subject of a habeas petition: the lawfulness of a petitioner’s detention,” Bryan concludes. “Accordingly, no reasonable person could believe that marriage to General Kramer—who represents the State of Minnesota in its suit about federalism in relation to Operation Metro Surge— affects the undersigned’s view of habeas relief and documentation of Respondents’ return of Petitioner’s property.”