US Judge Blocks Trump Administration Subpoenas for Minnesota Governor Walz

A US federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to subpoena Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and several other state and local officials, ruling that the effort was designed to pressure them into assisting federal immigration enforcement and to “harass and retaliate against them” for refusing to do so.

In a ruling unsealed on Monday, US District Judge Patrick Schlitz found that the “dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.”

The subpoenas were issued in January as part of a federal investigation into whether Walz and other officials had obstructed or impeded law enforcement during a large-scale immigration operation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

The demands for records were sent to the offices of Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

Schlitz concluded that there was little evidence linking the records sought by federal prosecutors to any potential criminal wrongdoing. According to the ruling, the connection between the requested information and any possible criminal violation appeared “extremely weak to nonexistent.”

The judge further observed that the subpoenas sought materials “that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct,” adding that Minnesota has the legal right not to dedicate its own resources to enforcing federal immigration law.

In one of the sharpest criticisms contained in the ruling, Schlitz wrote that the Justice Department “is not conducting a criminal investigation,” but is instead using the grand jury process for other (unlawful) purposes.”

He also said the evidence suggesting the subpoenas were issued for improper reasons was overwhelming, arguing that the Justice Department “has struggled — without success — to identify a single plausible investigatory justification” for them.

The ruling marks a significant setback for the administration's efforts to investigate state and local officials over their handling of immigration-related matters and is the latest judicial rebuke of Justice Department actions tied to the Trump administration's immigration agenda.

Walz welcomed the decision, describing it as “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.”

“The US Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” said Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2024 election. “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.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison also criticised the investigation, saying “it should disturb every American that Donald Trump is weaponizing the criminal justice system against people he disagrees with.”

St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her called the subpoenas “a politically motivated retaliation against our city for lawfully standing up to ICE and fighting for our residents.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the investigation was “never about justice, law, and order, but the absence of it."

“Subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke on behalf of their constituents violates the core tenets of our democracy and human decency,” he said.

Frey also defended the right of elected officials to publicly criticise government actions.

“One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution. Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve,” he said.

The ruling comes amid broader scrutiny of the Justice Department's actions under the Trump administration. Over the past year, courts have dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, while grand juries have repeatedly declined to return indictments sought by federal prosecutors.

Those developments have fuelled criticism from opponents of the administration, who argue that the Justice Department is increasingly being used to pursue political adversaries rather than operating independently of the White House.