Federal judge blocks Trump administration efforts to subpoena Minnesota governor Tim Walz and others

U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz has quashed Trump administration grand jury subpoenas aimed at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other state and local officials, delivering a rare judicial rebuke in a politically charged immigration-enforcement fight.

The order, unsealed on June 22, found that the subpoenas had extremely weak or nonexistent links to any possible criminal violation. Schiltz said the dominant purpose of the demands was to coerce Minnesota officials into helping federal civil immigration enforcement and to retaliate against officials who resisted that effort.

The ruling is the latest turn in a broader clash between the Trump administration and Minnesota Democrats over immigration enforcement and sanctuary policy. It also highlights the limits a federal court found on using grand jury subpoenas in a dispute that was already politically charged.

What the judge found

Schiltz said the Justice Department’s asserted investigative purpose was not plausible on the record before him. According to the reporting, he concluded the subpoenas were aimed less at building a criminal case than at pressuring state and local leaders to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.

That is a significant finding because judicial intervention in grand jury matters is uncommon. The court’s reasoning gives Minnesota officials a legal victory and may shape how future federal-state conflicts over immigration enforcement are litigated.

Who was targeted

The subpoenas were reported to have targeted Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and county officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

The Justice Department sought records and potentially testimony from the officials as part of a federal investigation tied to alleged obstruction of immigration enforcement in Minnesota. The reporting indicates the government’s effort was connected to the administration’s immigration push in the state.

How the dispute developed

The subpoena fight dates to January, when federal prosecutors served the grand jury demands. The background to the case includes Operation Metro Surge, the federal immigration-enforcement push in Minnesota earlier in 2026.

Minnesota Democratic officials had resisted the enforcement surge and argued that the administration’s actions were politically motivated. Schiltz’s ruling now gives that argument new weight in court, at least for the moment.

The order was not publicly available until June 22, when it was unsealed and first reported by the Associated Press, followed by confirmation and additional reporting from Axios and The Guardian later that day.

Reactions and next steps

Walz called the ruling a victory for the rule of law and democracy. The Justice Department said it takes unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations seriously and will continue to investigate the matters in full compliance with the law.

The department could appeal or seek narrower demands, and the case could remain active if additional filings are released. For now, though, the court has removed the subpoena leverage the administration was trying to use against Minnesota officials.

The ruling may also become an important reference point in future federal-state clashes over immigration enforcement and sanctuary policies, especially when prosecutors seek records from officials who have openly resisted cooperation.