A federal judge delivered a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration's Justice Department on Monday, blocking subpoenas targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials in what the court found was an attempt to coerce and retaliate against them for declining to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz ruled that the subpoenas had "extremely weak to nonexistent" connections to any possible criminal violation and concluded the Justice Department was "not conducting a criminal investigation," but instead using the grand jury process for unlawful purposes. The judge said evidence that the subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons was overwhelming and that the Justice Department had struggled "without success" to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for them.
Targeting Protected Conduct
The subpoenas, served in January, sought records from the offices of Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties. They were part of an investigation into whether Walz and other officials obstructed or impeded law enforcement actions. Judge Schiltz found that the materials sought largely or entirely related to constitutionally protected conduct and noted that Minnesota has the legal right not to devote its resources to enforcing federal immigration law.
Walz called the ruling "a victory for the rule of law and our democracy." He said, "The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President's political opponents. This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration's lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law."
Ellison said "it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with." Her said the subpoenas were "a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents."
Escalating Tensions After Fatal Shootings
The ruling came amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and Minnesota's Democratic leaders that escalated in January after federal immigration officers clashed with protesters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, especially after officers' fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests and accused Walz, who was Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris' running mate in 2024, and others of encouraging protesters to disrupt Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.
Frey said the investigation was "never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it," and added, "Subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency." He also said criticizing government action is not a crime and that elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve.
Pattern of Legal Setbacks
The case was one of several recent legal setbacks for the Trump administration, including dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James and repeated grand jury refusals to return indictments sought by the Justice Department. Vice President JD Vance has separately called on the Justice Department to investigate Walz and Ellison over allegations they failed to stop widespread social services fraud, though the department has not said whether it will open an investigation. Walz and Ellison have described those allegations as politically motivated and defended their efforts to combat fraud in Minnesota.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty in March sued the administration for access to evidence in the Good and Pretti killings, accusing the administration of withholding evidence from state investigators. Moriarty also has pursued criminal charges against ICE officers in two other incidents, including the nonfatal shooting of a Venezuelan man, and says her office is investigating several other cases as well.
The Justice Department said in a statement that it "takes the unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations extremely seriously and will continue to act in full compliance with the law to investigate these matters."
Why This Matters:
The court's finding that the Justice Department used grand jury subpoenas for retaliation rather than legitimate criminal investigation raises fundamental questions about the integrity of federal law enforcement under political pressure. When state officials face federal investigation for exercising their constitutional right to criticize government actions and protect their residents, the balance between federal authority and state sovereignty comes under threat. The ruling affirms that states have no obligation to use their resources to enforce federal immigration law and that elected officials retain their First Amendment rights to speak on behalf of constituents. With fatal shootings by immigration officers still under investigation and evidence reportedly being withheld from state prosecutors, the tension between federal enforcement priorities and local accountability continues to affect communities where residents depend on both protection from violence and fair application of the law.