A federal judge in Minnesota has invalidated a series of Department of Justice grand jury subpoenas directed at several high-profile Democratic officials, ruling that the federal government improperly used its investigative authority in an effort tied to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.
In a sharply worded 29-page ruling released Monday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz concluded that there was “no doubt” the subpoenas were issued to pressure political opponents of President Donald Trump into assisting with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, wrote that the actions occurred against what he described as a broader backdrop of the administration’s use of criminal investigations involving political adversaries.
The subpoenas were issued to the offices of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and the boards overseeing Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
According to the ruling, federal prosecutors sought records related to cooperation with immigration authorities dating back to the beginning of the previous year. The requests included guidance provided to state and local employees concerning interactions with federal immigration officials.
The legal battle emerged during a period of heightened tensions in Minnesota surrounding federal immigration enforcement.
Earlier this year, the Twin Cities region became a focal point of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol personnel were deployed in larger numbers to the area after federal officials raised concerns about alleged fraud within Minnesota’s social service programs.
The situation intensified in January when federal agents fatally shot two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in separate incidents. Good was killed on Jan. 7, while Pretti died on Jan. 24.
The deaths sparked protests both within Minnesota and across the country. The incidents also fueled criticism of the administration’s enforcement efforts from Walz, Frey, and other state and local officials.
It was during the period between those two fatal shootings that the Justice Department issued the challenged subpoenas.
Schiltz’s ruling focused heavily on constitutional questions surrounding the relationship between federal and state governments. The judge noted that the Constitution prevents the federal government from forcing states or local governments to carry out federal laws.
He further concluded that the administration had engaged in what he described as a “blatantly unlawful and unethical” use of the grand jury process.
“On the one hand, the evidence that the challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming,” Schiltz wrote. “On the other hand, the Department has struggled—without success—to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas.”
The Department of Justice had not publicly commented on the ruling as of Monday. The Hill reported that it had reached out to the department for a response.
Minnesota officials who were targeted by the subpoenas quickly welcomed the decision.
Walz called the ruling “a victory for the law and our democracy” and argued that the Constitution protects the right of states and local officials to disagree with federal policies.
“The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” Walz said. He added that the case represented one example of what he characterized as broader lawlessness by the administration.
Ellison also celebrated the ruling, writing on social media that the administration “came after me for standing up for Minnesota” but ultimately “came up empty.”
Frey similarly praised the decision, saying he was grateful for the ruling and condemning the federal investigation as a violation of democratic principles.
“No one should be targeted for questioning those in power,” Frey said. “No community should be expected to accept harmful policies without objection. And no administration should use the tools of law enforcement to silence dissent.”
The ruling marks a significant setback for the federal government’s efforts to compel cooperation from Minnesota officials as debates over immigration enforcement and the limits of federal authority continue to unfold.
[READ MORE: Mark Levin Rips Iran Deal, Warns Against Trusting Tehran as Critics Question Administration’s Approach]
