A federal judge has blocked Justice Department subpoenas targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and several state and local officials, ruling that the Trump administration’s immigration-related investigation appeared to be politically motivated and unlawful.
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz quashed the subpoenas, which had been issued to Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and other officials in connection with a federal probe into alleged obstruction of immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department had argued that it was investigating whether Minnesota officials interfered with federal immigration operations during a controversial enforcement surge earlier this year. But Schiltz found that the government had not identified a plausible criminal basis for the subpoenas and instead appeared to be trying to pressure local officials into helping enforce federal civil immigration law.
In his order, Schiltz wrote that the evidence the subpoenas were issued for improper reasons was “overwhelming.” He said the Justice Department appeared to be using the grand jury process to coerce or retaliate against officials who opposed or limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
TRENDING TODAY
The ruling is significant because courts rarely intervene in grand jury subpoenas. But Schiltz said the circumstances justified quashing them, especially because the subpoenas appeared to target protected political speech and state policy choices.
The judge also raised constitutional concerns, pointing to the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s ability to force states and localities to administer federal programs. State and local governments may choose to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, but they generally cannot be compelled to carry out civil immigration duties for Washington.
The subpoenas came after heightened tensions between the Trump administration and Minnesota officials over immigration policy. The federal government had accused some local leaders of adopting or defending “sanctuary” policies that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Minnesota leaders said the investigation was an attempt to punish political opponents and silence dissent.
Walz called the ruling a victory for the rule of law and democratic rights. He said the Justice Department’s actions reflected a broader effort to use federal law enforcement against political opponents.
Ellison also praised the decision, saying the Trump administration had targeted him because he opposed its policies. Frey said no city or community should be punished for questioning federal power or objecting to harmful policies.
The Justice Department defended its broader position, saying it takes obstruction of federal law enforcement seriously and would continue acting within the law to investigate such matters.
The decision adds to the growing national fight over immigration enforcement, federal power and local resistance. Trump has repeatedly pushed for aggressive immigration operations, while Democratic-led states and cities have challenged raids, detentions and attempts to compel local cooperation.
For Minnesota, the ruling is a major legal win. For the Trump administration, it is another setback in its effort to use federal investigative tools against officials who oppose its immigration agenda.
Why It Matters
The ruling matters because it draws a line between legitimate federal investigations and attempts to pressure state or local officials over political disagreements. It also reinforces that the federal government cannot easily force local officials to participate in civil immigration enforcement.
What Comes Next
The Justice Department may seek further review or continue pursuing other immigration-related investigations. Minnesota officials are likely to use the ruling as evidence that Trump’s enforcement strategy overreached, while the administration may argue that local resistance undermines federal immigration law.
