Chief Judge Patrick J Schiltz blocked DOJ retaliatory subpoenas Minnesota officials after ruling that the US Department of Justice could not use them to pressure Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, Jacob Frey and others over immigration enforcement. The order, unsealed on Monday by the US district court for Minnesota, stops the subpoenas that were issued in January.
Schiltz wrote that the subpoenas were meant 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.” Walz called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy.”
January subpoenas
The subpoenas reached Walz, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey and other local officials. The Justice Department said it was investigating them for obstructing federal immigration enforcement, tying the subpoenas to a Trump administration investigation related to alleged obstruction of ICE raids in Minnesota earlier this year.
The order says the grand-jury process cannot be used to pursue that kind of pressure campaign. Schiltz wrote that initiating an investigation to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action, especially action the federal government cannot directly require, is “a blatantly unlawful and unethical use the grand-jury process.”
Monday order
Keith Ellison posted the unsealed order on Monday, making the ruling public after the court had kept it sealed. The filing also described the administration as threatening and attempting to punish states and localities that had adopted sanctuary policies.
For Minnesota officials who received the subpoenas, the ruling ends the immediate legal demand for records or testimony tied to that inquiry. The order leaves the Justice Department without the subpoena tool it used in January, and the next legal step was not laid out in the filing.
Schiltz ruling
The ruling turns on the purpose of the subpoenas, not just their existence. Schiltz found that the Justice Department’s stated investigation into obstruction did not justify a process the court viewed as coercive and retaliatory, making the order a direct limit on how far the federal government can push state and local officials in this dispute.
Walz’s response placed the fight in broader terms for him and the other officials named in the order. With the subpoenas blocked, the immediate question shifts to what evidence or allegations led the Justice Department to issue them in January.
