A federal judge in Minneapolis threw out Justice Department subpoenas aimed at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and four other state and local officials, ruling in a 29-page order that the Trump administration used the grand-jury process to harass political opponents rather than pursue a legitimate criminal investigation.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, a George W. Bush appointee, issued the ruling on June 17. It was unsealed Monday, drawing immediate celebration from the Democratic officials who had been targeted and raising fresh questions about the legal boundaries of federal immigration enforcement.
The subpoenas landed during Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement push in Minnesota earlier this year. The DOJ served them on Walz's office, Ellison's office, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and the boards of commissioners of Ramsey and Hennepin counties, the state's two largest. In short, the subpoenas swept across nearly the entire top tier of Minnesota's Democratic political leadership.
Judge Schiltz did not mince words. His order described the subpoenas as "extraordinarily broad" and directed at "a wide swath of the state's political leadership." He found they sought materials that "largely, if not entirely, relate to constitutionally protected conduct."
The core of the ruling rests on the judge's conclusion that the DOJ was not conducting a genuine criminal investigation. As Schiltz wrote:
"Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action, particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take, is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use [of] the grand-jury process."
He left no ambiguity about whether the subpoenas crossed that line.
"The only question, then, is whether the challenged subpoenas were issued for one of these forbidden purposes. The Court has no doubt that they were."
That is a striking conclusion, and it came not from an Obama or Biden appointee, but from a judge nominated by George W. Bush. The fact matters because it makes the ruling harder to dismiss as partisan overreach from the bench.
The Justice Department's justification rested on advocacy by members of the Minneapolis City Council. DOJ cited two examples of council-member statements and argued that dissemination of certain information "could, in turn, result in other individuals evading or interfering with future ICE activity."
Schiltz was unpersuaded. He wrote that the connection between the subpoenaed materials and any possible criminal conduct was "so remote as to be spurious." The DOJ's reasoning, he said, "piles speculation upon speculation, while also taking aim at perfectly legal, indeed, constitutionally protected, behavior."
The judge also noted a constitutional principle that conservatives have long championed: the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal laws. The Washington Examiner reported that Schiltz found the DOJ failed to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas, and that the Constitution does not permit Washington to force state compliance with federal immigration enforcement.
That principle, rooted in the Tenth Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court, has historically been a conservative rallying point against federal overreach. When a Republican-appointed judge invokes it to check a Republican administration, it deserves serious attention, not reflexive dismissal.
The subpoenas did not arrive in a vacuum. They came after the January shooting deaths of two individuals, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, at the hands of federal immigration enforcement agents in Minnesota. Those deaths sparked widespread local backlash and deepened tensions between state Democrats and the federal government over immigration operations.
The referral of Walz and Ellison to the DOJ fraud division by Vice President Vance earlier this year had already signaled that the administration viewed Minnesota's Democratic leadership as obstructionist on immigration. The subpoenas represented an escalation, using the grand-jury mechanism to demand documents from officials who had publicly resisted cooperation with ICE.
AP News reported that Judge Schiltz found the "dominant purpose" of the subpoenas was to coerce and retaliate against Minnesota officials for not assisting with federal immigration enforcement. The judge stated plainly that the DOJ "is not conducting a criminal investigation" but was using the grand-jury process for "other (unlawful) purposes."
Gov. Walz called the ruling a "victory for the rule of law and our democracy" and issued a statement going further:
"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."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison added his own response. "It should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with," Ellison said, as AP News reported.
There is a real tension here, and honest conservatives should not wave it away. The frustration with sanctuary policies is legitimate. When state and local officials refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, it makes the job of ICE agents harder and more dangerous, a reality underscored by the deaths of Good and Pretti. Voters who support strong borders have every right to expect that federal law will be enforced.
But the grand-jury subpoena is one of the most powerful tools in the federal arsenal. It compels testimony and document production under penalty of contempt. When that tool is aimed at elected officials for their public policy positions, not for evidence of specific criminal acts, it crosses a line that should alarm anyone who values limited government.
Judge Schiltz found that the DOJ could not identify a concrete crime under investigation. The subpoenas targeted constitutionally protected speech and official conduct. The connection to criminal activity was, in the judge's words, speculative piled on speculation. That is not how a legitimate criminal investigation works. It is how political pressure campaigns work.
The ruling noted that the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal laws, a principle that cuts both ways. Conservatives rightly invoked it during the Obama years when Washington tried to impose mandates on red states. It does not stop applying when the shoe is on the other foot.
The DOJ's approach also carries practical risks. Courts that see the grand-jury process used for political leverage are less likely to grant deference to federal prosecutors in future immigration cases where the legal footing is solid. Every overreach makes the next legitimate enforcement action harder.
This is not the first time federal courts have checked aggressive DOJ tactics in recent months. The broader pattern of judicial pushback against DOJ actions spans administrations and raises persistent questions about prosecutorial boundaries.
Nor is the DOJ immune to internal dysfunction. The indictment of a former DOJ prosecutor for stealing sealed documents illustrated how institutional discipline can erode when political stakes run high.
Meanwhile, the DOJ has shown it can act decisively when the legal basis is clear, as seen in its crackdown on D.C. teen takeovers. The difference between that effort and the Minnesota subpoenas is the difference between enforcing law and leveraging law enforcement as a political instrument.
Several important facts remain unknown. The DOJ has not publicly responded to the ruling. Whether the department will appeal is unclear. The specific materials the subpoenas sought from each official have not been disclosed in detail. And the formal case name and full docket information have not been widely published, though the court filing is available on CourtListener.
None of the other subpoena targets, Frey, Her, or the county boards, have issued public statements captured in the available reporting.
The ruling stands, for now, as a direct judicial finding that the DOJ abused the grand-jury process for political purposes. That is a serious conclusion from a serious judge with serious credentials.
Conservatives who want strong immigration enforcement, and there are very good reasons to want it, should be the first to demand that enforcement be done right. Subpoenas that a Bush-appointed judge calls "blatantly unlawful" do not strengthen the border. They strengthen the opposition's argument that enforcement is really about punishment.
The DOJ has enormous power. Using it to investigate real crimes committed by real people who obstruct real enforcement operations is proper. Using it to dragnet an entire state's political leadership because they hold the wrong policy views is something else entirely.
If the federal government wants Minnesota's cooperation on immigration, it has political tools, legislative tools, and funding tools to pursue that goal. The grand jury is not supposed to be one of them. A Republican judge just said so, in 29 pages, with no ambiguity at all.
When your own appointees are telling you the line has been crossed, the smart move is to listen, not to double down.
