Trump's Justice Department Used Six Subpoenas to Coerce Minnesota Officials, a Judge Found

The Court Found Coercion and Retaliation

On January 20, 2026, the FBI served six federal grand jury subpoenas on state and local government offices in Minnesota: those of Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul, plus the boards of Hennepin and Ramsey counties.¹² Seven days earlier, President Trump had posted about the state: "THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING!"³¹

Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz quashed all six in an order dated June 17, 2026.¹ He found that Trump's Justice Department had used them to pressure Minnesota officials into helping enforce federal immigration law and to retaliate against them for refusing.¹ The subpoenas, he wrote, "were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate."¹ George W. Bush nominated Schiltz, who had clerked for Antonin Scalia on both the appeals court and the Supreme Court.⁴ The federal government, he held, was using criminal process against a choice the Constitution protects: a state's refusal to supply its resources for federal enforcement.¹

Trump's tie to that campaign was public.³¹ Schiltz read his post as an explicit threat of retribution "against Minnesota's political leaders for exercising their constitutional right to decline to cooperate with ICE."¹ The warnings that followed came from his White House, from Attorney General Pamela Bondi and from her deputy, Todd Blanche, who had represented Trump in three criminal cases.⁵⁶⁷ Blanche stayed on after the ruling and was sworn in as attorney general on August 10, 2026.⁷ Trump had also signed an executive order directing legal remedies and enforcement measures against sanctuary jurisdictions described as defying federal law.⁸ That order did not direct the six subpoenas, and the court made no finding that Trump ordered, approved or knew of them; it attributed their purpose to DOJ.⁸¹

Order, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, No. 0:26-mc-00043-PJS, page 25¹

In sum, because the Court finds that the dominant purpose of the challenged subpoenas is 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 Court grants the motions to quash.

Eight Days After Minnesota Sued

On January 12, 2026, Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul sued to stop Operation Metro Surge, alleging that the deployment was intended to punish political opponents.⁹ The administration launched the surge in December 2025, according to Schiltz's account, which drew on public reports DOJ did not dispute.¹ By that account, more than 3,000 Homeland Security agents were working in the state at its height, and agents killed two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during the operation.¹

Trump's post came the next day.³ It named no Minnesota official and did not mention the lawsuit; Schiltz nonetheless read it as an explicit threat against the state's political leaders, and he cited Trump's threat the same day to cut off federal funding.³¹

The FBI served the subpoenas on January 20, eight days after the suit and seven days after Trump's post.¹² They commanded the six offices' record custodians to appear, testify and produce materials concerning immigration enforcement going back to January 1, 2025.¹ The Minneapolis mayor's subpoena listed eight categories, including records "relating to cooperation or lack of cooperation" with federal immigration authorities and records "tending to show a refusal to come to the aid of immigration officials".¹

Those demands reached lawful policy choices: Schiltz found that the materials sought largely, if not entirely, concerned constitutionally protected conduct.¹ Enforcement was stayed on February 2 while the six offices challenged the demands in court.¹⁰¹

Warnings From the White House and DOJ

In the week before service, the public warnings came one after another.¹⁶⁵

According to Schiltz's order, Blanche accused Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on January 14 of "encouraging violence against law enforcement" and vowed to stop their "terrorism by whatever means necessary."¹ The assault report he was responding to turned out to have been fabricated by the agents, the order noted.¹

On January 15, Trump threatened on Truth Social that unless Minnesota politicians obeyed the law and stopped attacks on ICE officers, "I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT", Fox News reported.⁶

On January 16, Fox News reported that prosecutors were investigating Walz and Frey, citing two unnamed sources and describing an early-stage inquiry whose outcome was uncertain.⁶ In that report, Blanche said threatening officers or encouraging calls to 911 upon seeing ICE officers was "very close to a federal crime".⁶

The same day, Bondi posted: "A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."⁶¹ The White House published an article blaming the enhanced enforcement operations, tension and violence on state and local officials who refused to partner with the administration.⁵ Schiltz described the day's statements as "a seemingly coordinated media campaign".¹ He found that the investigation and subpoenas had been publicly revealed before service, most likely by DOJ.¹

The same Fox News report quoted Walz urging people to film ICE agents peacefully and reported that Frey had called for peace.⁶

Bondi Asked for the Policy Change DOJ Was Trying to Force

Four days after service, Bondi wrote to Walz and named the policy change she wanted.¹¹¹ Her January 24 letter asked Minnesota to share its Medicaid and food-assistance records, repeal sanctuary policies, and let DOJ's Civil Rights Division access its voter rolls.¹¹ She also urged full cooperation by detention facilities, including honoring immigration detainers and allowing ICE to interview people in custody.¹¹

Letter to Governor Tim Walz¹¹

Second, repeal the sanctuary policies that have led to so much crime and violence in your state.

The letter framed its demands as requests and mentioned no subpoena, grand jury or investigation of the governor; Schiltz still counted it as evidence of the coercive campaign.¹¹¹ Trump aides helped draft it, according to a New York Times report he cited, and he cited Bondi's public description of the letter as a demand that Walz "BETTER support President Trump."¹

DOJ's 2025 memoranda to all department employees already required investigation of resistance to lawful immigration commands and prosecution where supported by evidence.¹²¹³ DOJ also sued Minnesota and some of its political subdivisions to challenge provisions limiting assistance to federal immigration agents, the order noted.¹

A Broad Power, With a Constitutional Limit

DOJ's best defense was that a grand jury exists to discover whether a crime occurred: prosecutors need not prove the crime before asking for records.¹⁴¹⁵ Its February 24 brief argued that subpoenas are presumed proper and can issue on suspicion or to obtain assurance that the law has not been violated.¹⁴ Prosecutors claimed a reasonable basis to investigate a coordinated campaign to resist federal law enforcement, MPR News reported from the unsealed filings.¹⁶ In a sworn declaration on April 14, government lawyer Flavio de Abreu identified four potential charges involving harboring, obstruction or interference, and conspiracy.²¹ He said investigators had cast a wide net because they did not know who wrote or received a county training.²

The defense has law behind it: state officials have no general exemption from federal criminal law.¹⁷ The Supreme Court's anti-commandeering rule does not bar laws that regulate an activity evenhandedly for states and private actors.¹⁸ Even a President lacks absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena for private papers.¹⁹ But the Supreme Court barred using such a subpoena to manipulate his policies or retaliate for official acts.¹⁹ Refusing to lend state resources and obstructing federal officers are different questions.¹

Schiltz agreed that a subpoena need not rest on probable cause, assumed the usual presumption applied, and found that the recipients had overcome it.¹ He applied the Tenth Amendment rule that Washington cannot order states to enforce federal programs or retaliate against them for declining.¹ He also applied the rule that a grand jury cannot select targets out of malice or an intent to harass, and that an improper dominant purpose defeats a subpoena even if some valid purpose exists.¹¹⁵

DOJ's brief did not acknowledge or engage the recipients' Tenth Amendment argument, Schiltz noted.¹ He ruled on that ground, concluding that the public pressure campaign and the weakness of DOJ's claimed criminal basis both showed an improper purpose.¹

Four Examples Failed; a Fifth Was Withdrawn

Ordered to substantiate its examples, DOJ supplied materials for three, could not supply its original support for the Ramsey County example, and withdrew the St. Paul mayor claim; Schiltz found no plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas.²¹ It initially supplied no record support or public-document citations to substantiate or even fully identify its five examples, Schiltz noted.¹ At the April 1 hearing, he ordered prosecutors to supply the missing factual support.¹¹⁰ Four examples remained after DOJ withdrew one it could not substantiate.¹²

De Abreu also declared that the FBI had been instructed to add the proposed lead investigating agent's name to the subpoenas before service but failed to do so without explanation.²

The first was a Minneapolis City Council member's December 2025 amended ordinance requiring reports of immigration enforcement activity to the council.¹ Prosecutors suggested that the information could spread and help people evade or interfere with agents.¹ That reasoning, Schiltz wrote, "piles speculation upon speculation", and the reporting activity was constitutionally protected.¹

The second was another council member's January 2026 call for an eviction moratorium to protect residents from ICE.¹ DOJ did not explain how the proposal connected to actual or suspected criminal conduct, and the moratorium was never enacted.¹ As far as Schiltz knew, the council had not been subpoenaed.¹ He wrote: "So half of the examples of suspicious activity cited by the Department involve people whom the Department did not subpoena."¹

The other two concerned Ramsey and Hennepin county guidance for staff facing immigration agents.¹ Ramsey's instructions told employees not to provide data or documents themselves, even when an agent presented a warrant or subpoena, and to route legal questions to supervisors and counsel.¹ Hennepin's training instructed staff to contact leadership, decline information or consent to entry, and engage in respectful stalling; it also expressly forbade interference with immigration agents.¹ Schiltz held that routing sensitive matters to supervisors and lawyers violated no law and encouraged no unlawful behavior.¹

Order, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, page 24¹

None of this is itself unlawful, nor does any of this encourage unlawful behavior.

DOJ could not identify a single county employee who had actually obstructed an officer after being told of the employer's policy, the court found.¹ The withdrawn fifth example was its claim that St. Paul's mayor had vowed to fight all subpoenas.¹² De Abreu's declaration admitted that a review of agent communications and related records had found no document substantiating that wording.²

Schiltz found that DOJ had failed to identify even one plausible investigatory justification for the six subpoenas.¹ He called its asserted investigatory purpose "risible".¹ The subpoenas' connections to possible crimes ranged from extremely weak to nonexistent, he concluded, and that strengthened the evidence of coercion and retaliation.¹

Six Offices Had to Defend Their Right to Decline

The cost fell on the six offices, which had to litigate their right to withhold state resources: six motions filed on February 2, a hearing on April 1, cancellation in June.¹⁰¹

DOJ's asserted goal was to investigate federal crimes.² Schiltz found no plausible investigative justification and canceled the demands; the effort to compel testimony and records through these subpoenas failed.¹ After the ruling, a DOJ spokesperson told NOTUS that the department would continue to investigate the matters in full compliance with the law.²⁰

DOJ had opposed unsealing in April, before the June ruling, citing general grand jury secrecy policies without identifying specific concerns, the judge found.²¹¹ The targets wanted disclosure, with four exhibits kept sealed.¹ Schiltz reasoned that disclosure could not compromise a criminal investigation because DOJ was instead using the grand jury for unlawful purposes.¹

Order, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, page 27¹

Finally, the public has a very strong interest in learning of this abuse of the grand-jury process by the Department.

The order became public on June 22.¹¹⁰ As of October 10, 2026, CourtListener's public copy of the docket, last updated October 8, listed the matter as terminated September 1 and showed no notice of appeal.²¹

Why This Is an Abuse of Public Power

One defense remains, and it is the President's own: he has broad authority over federal investigation and prosecution.²² In its 2024 criminal-immunity decision, the Supreme Court said allegations of an improper purpose do not take away his exclusive authority over DOJ's investigative functions, and courts may not examine his motives when distinguishing official from unofficial acts.²² The Court held Trump absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with DOJ officials; that holding does not decide whether such conduct can constitute an impeachable abuse.²²²³

Impeachment asks a different question: Hamilton described impeachable misconduct as abuse or violation of public trust.²⁴ Article II requires the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and permits removal through impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors.²³ The Supreme Court has described federal prosecutors as delegates helping the President discharge that duty.²⁵ The House Judiciary Committee's second Nixon article, approved 28 to 10, charged misuse of investigative agencies for purposes unrelated to any lawful function and failure to act when he knew or had reason to know close subordinates were impeding lawful inquiries.²⁶

The subpoenas were not the only federal action aimed at Walz and Ellison in 2026: in June, The National News Desk reported, Vice President JD Vance referred both men to DOJ over fraud.²⁷ House Oversight majority staff alleged that both knew of widespread fraud and repeatedly failed to use their authority to stop it, leaving open whether this was incompetence, willful blindness or worse.²⁸ A $250 million fraud scheme produced two jury convictions; the U.S. Attorney's release named neither official.²⁹ The same month, California Governor Gavin Newsom alleged an abusive inquiry into him and his wife.³⁰³¹ NPR reported that the corruption investigation in which his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, pleaded guilty did not implicate Newsom; the U.S. Attorney's Office said that investigation began in 2022.³²³³

In Minnesota, the court reached a finding, not merely an accusation: DOJ used six criminal subpoenas to coerce state and local officials into enforcing federal immigration law and to punish them for declining.¹ Trump's public threat of retribution was part of the campaign the judge identified.¹ Six public offices spent February to June in court defending a choice the Constitution protects.¹⁰¹ Using federal criminal power to take away a state's protected choice is an abuse of public power, and that is why this conduct belongs in a case for impeachment.¹²⁴ The judge stopped the demands.¹