Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say
Coordination methods included meetings and shared tools, prompting questions about judicial independence.
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino walks alongside BORTAC officers at a Speedway gas station in Minneapolis on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. ((Photo by Chad Davis)
Photograph: WND (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Federal judges in Minnesota coordinated their approach to immigration cases, including habeas petitions related to President Trump's immigration policies.
- Methods of coordination involved regular meetings, email threads, and shared spreadsheets and order templates, according to The New York Times.
- Trump administration officials have raised questions about whether this cooperation compromised judicial independence.
- Judges involved stated that each case was ultimately decided independently on its merits.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 7 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .
Trust
42/100
Craft
65/100
Hype
68/100
7 sources · methodology
Thin on the left so far
None of the 7 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
Federal judges in Minnesota coordinated their handling of immigration cases, including those challenging President Trump's immigration policies, according to reports. The coordination involved regular meetings, running email threads, and shared tools such as spreadsheets and order templates, as revealed by The New York Times.
The coordination was used to manage a surge in habeas petitions related to immigration detention. The district saw a significant increase in such petitions, receiving 1,427 through August of the year in question, compared to 12 for all of the previous year. Judges stated that this collaboration helped them resolve cases more quickly.
Disagreement on the nature of coordination
Trump administration officials have questioned whether this cooperation crossed a line and compromised judicial independence. The Department of Homeland Security's General Counsel James Percival accused former Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of "essentially conspiring with his judicial colleagues" to thwart immigration enforcement. The Department of Justice suggested that judges who gave on-the-record interviews about their experiences handling immigration operations should consider recusal. Judges involved, including Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, maintain that while they communicated, each judge independently decided every individual petition on its merits.
What the coverage left out
None of the right-rated reports below mention the specific figure of $1.2bn, which was the estimated cost of the immigration crackdown mentioned in the original New York Times report that revealed the judges' coordination.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 1 time, most recently on 18 Sept 2026, 23:00, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say
thedailybs.com — embedded from source
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated left has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Centre
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated centre has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Right
7 rated outlets
- Right-rated reports focused on the alleged "collusion" and "activism" of the judges. WND's headline asked, "‘Colluding’? Federal judges admit to coordinating decisions on cases in Minnesota immigration crackdown." The Daily Bo Snerdley reported that judges were "accused of coordinating behind the scenes on Trump immigration cases." The National Pulse stated that "Federal Judges Admit Coordination in Trump Immigration Cases." Wfmd.com and Fox News used the headline, "‘Unprecedented’: Judges reveal behind-the-scenes coordination on Trump immigration cases." These reports highlighted the coordination methods, including meetings, email threads, and shared tools, and presented the Trump administration's concerns about judicial independence. WND quoted Mike Lee stating, "If federal judges are colluding 'to thwart legal proceedings related to immigration,' impeachment is not only warranted, but imperative." The reports also noted comments from George Mason University law professor Robert Luther III, who described the running email chain as "very weird and frankly unprecedented."
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say?
- Of the 7 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 0% are rated left, 0% are rated centre, 100% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 7 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say biased?
- Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say is one event reported by 7 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated left had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Minnesota judges coordinated on immigration cases, reports say?
- 7 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- How did federal judges in Minnesota coordinate their work on immigration cases?
- Federal judges in Minnesota coordinated through regular meetings, running email threads, and shared tools like spreadsheets and order templates. This was done to handle a surge in immigration-related habeas petitions.
- What concerns have been raised about this coordination?
- Trump administration officials have questioned whether this cooperation compromised judicial independence. Some have accused the judges of conspiring to thwart immigration enforcement and suggested that judges who spoke publicly should consider recusal.
- What do the judges say about their coordination?
- The judges involved maintain that despite communicating with each other, each judge independently decided every individual petition on its merits. They stated that their coordination helped them resolve cases more quickly.
Read it at the source
7 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Centre
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Right
7- ‘Colluding’? Federal judges admit to coordinating decisions on cases in Minnesota immigration crackdown * WND News Center (opens wndnewscenter.org in a new tab)
wndnewscenter.org — is wndnewscenter.org biased? Our profile of this outlet
- ‘Colluding’? Federal judges admit to coordinating decisions on cases in Minnesota immigration crackdown * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh (opens WND in a new tab)
- Federal judges accused of coordinating behind the scenes on Trump immigration cases - The Daily Bo Snerdley (opens thedailybs.com in a new tab)
thedailybs.com — is thedailybs.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal Judges Admit Coordination in Trump Immigration Cases. (opens The National Pulse in a new tab)
The National Pulse — is The National Pulse biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal Judges Disclose Shared Emails and Case Tools During Immigration Habeas Surge (opens [your]NEWS in a new tab)
[your]NEWS — is [your]NEWS biased? Our profile of this outlet
- ‘Unprecedented’: Judges reveal behind-the-scenes coordination on Trump immigration cases (opens wfmd.com in a new tab)
- ‘Unprecedented’: Judges reveal behind-the-scenes coordination on Trump immigration cases (opens Fox News in a new tab)
Not rated
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
