A federal judge has blocked Justice Department subpoenas seeking records from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other Democratic officials, ruling that the demands were unconstitutional and improperly tied to political retaliation.
Judge Quashes Six Subpoenas
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz said the Justice Department failed to show a valid criminal investigative purpose for the records demands. The subpoenas were tied to a federal probe into whether Minnesota officials obstructed immigration enforcement during a major federal operation in the Twin Cities.
In the federal court order, Schiltz said the subpoenas were part of an unconstitutional effort to force state and local officials to help enforce federal civil immigration law.
Records Demands Were Broad
The subpoenas sought records dating back to January 1, 2025. They covered communications, policies, training materials, directives, and guidance connected to federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
The records demands were sent to the governor’s office, the Minnesota attorney general’s office, the mayoral offices in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and county officials in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
Schiltz said the requests were “extraordinarily broad.” He found that much of the material sought appeared to involve conduct protected by the Constitution.
Immigration Surge Triggered Clash
The subpoenas followed a Trump administration immigration crackdown in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Federal agents were deployed as part of an enforcement surge aimed at detaining immigrants accused of being in the country unlawfully.
The operation drew protests and sharp criticism from Minnesota Democrats. State and local leaders accused federal officials of using aggressive tactics and undermining public trust.
According to the Associated Press, which reported Monday, tensions escalated in January after federal immigration officers clashed with protesters in Minnesota.
Court Cites Political Pressure
Schiltz said the public record showed repeated threats from senior Trump administration officials against jurisdictions with so-called sanctuary policies. The judge noted that federal officials had criticized Minnesota leaders for limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement. He also cited public statements suggesting consequences for state and local officials who refused to partner with the administration.
The court said that the sequence helped show the subpoenas were not routine evidence requests. Schiltz found the Justice Department’s stated investigative purpose weak. He said the department had struggled to identify a single plausible reason for the subpoenas.
DOJ Defends Inquiry
The Justice Department said it takes obstruction of federal law enforcement seriously and would continue to act within the law. The department did not announce an immediate appeal on Monday. It also did not provide any new public evidence to support the subpoenas after the ruling.
Walz Calls Probe Political
Walz welcomed the ruling and said the investigation was politically motivated, unconstitutional, and meritless. In a statement posted after the decision, Walz accused the Justice Department of pursuing criminal investigations against President Donald Trump’s political opponents. He said the ruling was a victory for the rule of law.
Ellison also praised the decision. In Minnesota, the attorney general said the court found that the subpoenas violated the Tenth Amendment and lacked a valid basis for investigation.
Federalism Issue at the Center
The ruling turned heavily on the anti-commandeering principle. That doctrine limits the federal government’s power to force state and local officials to administer federal programs. Immigration law is enforced by the federal government. But states and cities are not required to devote local staff, records, jails, or other resources to civil immigration enforcement unless federal law validly requires them to do so.
Schiltz said Minnesota officials were allowed to choose not to assist federal immigration authorities. He said the subpoenas appeared to target that lawful refusal.
That distinction was central to the ruling. The court did not say federal agents cannot enforce immigration law in Minnesota. It said the DOJ cannot use grand jury subpoenas to punish officials for refusing to help.
The six subpoenas are now quashed. The ruling prevents the Justice Department from forcing the targeted Minnesota offices to turn over the records demanded through those subpoenas.
