Federal judge quashes DOJ subpoenas of Minnesota officials

A federal judge in Minnesota has quashed six Justice Department subpoenas issued to Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and other state and local officials, dealing a setback to the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement push in the state.

U.S. District Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz unsealed the order on June 22 and said the subpoenas were politically motivated. According to reporting by the Associated Press, the court found the government’s claimed links to a criminal investigation were extremely weak and that officials had not identified a concrete instance of county employee obstruction after being told about local policies.

What the judge found

Schiltz rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to use grand jury subpoenas to collect records and testimony from Minnesota officials over the state’s handling of federal immigration enforcement. The order concluded that the subpoenas were aimed at harassing, coercing or retaliating against officials rather than pursuing a legitimate investigative need.

That finding is important because it tests how far federal prosecutors can go when pressing state and local leaders to cooperate with immigration enforcement. It also puts a legal spotlight on the use of criminal process in a politically charged dispute between Minnesota officials and the federal government.

The ruling addressed subpoenas issued in January 2026 during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Those subpoenas targeted Walz, Ellison, Frey and other county and city officials as part of an inquiry into whether state and local leaders had obstructed federal operations.

How the dispute began

The investigation grew out of a broader clash over immigration enforcement and local cooperation. The Justice Department said it was examining possible unlawful obstruction of federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.

Court filings and the unsealed order, as summarized by AP, indicate that Schiltz found the government’s theory too weak to support the subpoenas. The judge said the federal side had not shown a concrete example of county employee obstruction after being informed about local policies, and he found the asserted links to a criminal case to be minimal or nonexistent.

The subpoenas were first served in January, during a period when immigration enforcement in Minnesota became a major political and legal flashpoint. The case drew in senior state and local officials and raised the stakes for future disputes over how far federal authorities can push sanctuary-style jurisdictions.

Who was targeted

The subpoenas were directed at six Minnesota officials and offices, including Walz, Ellison and Frey. Other local county and city officials were also swept into the dispute.

The order did not just affect a single office. It touched multiple levels of Minnesota government, making the case a broader test of federal leverage over state and local cooperation in immigration enforcement.

Reactions from both sides

Walz, Ellison and Frey welcomed the ruling and said the subpoenas were retaliatory or politically motivated, according to AP and Axios. Their response framed the case as an abuse of federal power rather than a legitimate evidence-gathering effort.

The Justice Department said it takes unlawful obstruction of federal law-enforcement operations seriously and will continue to act in compliance with the law. That leaves open the possibility that federal prosecutors could continue related investigative work even after the subpoenas were blocked.

What happens next

The immediate question is whether the Justice Department will appeal the order or continue pursuing related investigations through other means. The court’s ruling does not appear to end the broader conflict over Minnesota’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Further filings could clarify exactly what records and testimony prosecutors wanted from each office and whether Schiltz addressed every target in a single consolidated ruling.

For now, the order is a clear setback for the federal investigation and a legal win for Minnesota officials who argued the subpoenas were retaliation for refusing to cooperate more fully with the administration’s immigration agenda.