Trump's Justice Department Used Six Subpoenas to Coerce Minnesota Officials, a Judge Found
Chapter 1 — Criminal Process as Pressure
Chapter 2 — The Campaign Around the Subpoenas
Chapter 3 — The Investigation DOJ Could Not Justify
Chapter 4 — Blocked, Then Exposed
1 · Criminal Process as Pressure
1.1 — The Court Found Coercion and Retaliation
1.2 — Eight Days After Minnesota Sued
Trump's Justice Department sent six grand jury subpoenas to Minnesota government offices. A federal judge canceled every one, finding that their main purpose was to force officials to help with immigration enforcement and to punish them for declining. Trump had publicly promised retribution a week before the subpoenas were served; the judge made no finding that he ordered them.
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.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul sued to stop Operation Metro Surge on January 12, 2026. Trump promised retribution the next day, and the FBI served the subpoenas on January 20. They demanded records reaching back a year, including records of refusal to help immigration agents.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
2 · The Campaign Around the Subpoenas
2.1 — Warnings From the White House and DOJ
2.2 — Bondi Asked for the Policy Change DOJ Was Trying to Force
The week before the subpoenas arrived, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act unless Minnesota politicians obeyed the law and stopped attacks on ICE officers, according to Fox News. Senior officials accused Minnesota leaders of endangering agents, and Todd Blanche suggested the governor and Minneapolis mayor were close to committing a federal crime. The judge called the January 16 statements a seemingly coordinated media campaign. The same Fox News report quoted Walz urging people to film ICE agents peacefully and reported that Frey had called for peace.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
Four days after the subpoenas were served, Attorney General Pamela Bondi asked Governor Walz to repeal sanctuary policies, share public-assistance records and give DOJ access to voter rolls. The judge counted her letter as evidence of the subpoenas' purpose, citing her public description of it as a demand that Walz support Trump.
Second, repeal the sanctuary policies that have led to so much crime and violence in your state.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
3 · The Investigation DOJ Could Not Justify
3.1 — A Broad Power, With a Constitutional Limit
3.2 — Four Examples Failed; a Fifth Was Withdrawn
DOJ had a strong legal starting point: grand jury subpoenas need no showing that a crime probably occurred and are normally assumed proper. State officials can be investigated for federal crimes. Schiltz accepted those principles, but found that these demands used criminal process to punish protected noncooperation.
DOJ initially supplied no record support for its five examples, and the judge ordered prosecutors to provide it. DOJ supplied materials for three examples, could not supply its original support for the Ramsey County example, and withdrew the St. Paul mayor claim. Two examples concerned city council members who, as far as the judge knew, had received no subpoenas; two others concerned county guidance that the judge found lawful. DOJ could identify no county employee who obstructed an officer after receiving the guidance, and withdrew the fifth example because it could not substantiate it.
None of this is itself unlawful, nor does any of this encourage unlawful behavior.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
4 · Blocked, Then Exposed
4.1 — Six Offices Had to Defend Their Right to Decline
4.2 — Why This Is an Abuse of Public Power
The six offices challenged the subpoenas in February, and the court canceled them in June. DOJ's claimed investigative goal failed in court: the judge found no plausible criminal basis for these demands. DOJ had also opposed unsealing, but the judge made the ruling public because people had a strong interest in learning of the abuse.
Finally, the public has a very strong interest in learning of this abuse of the grand-jury process by the Department.
Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →
A federal court found that Trump's Justice Department used criminal process to force a policy choice the Constitution leaves to Minnesota. Trump's public threats were part of the judge's reasoning. That finding supports an abuse-of-power charge against his administration.
Full Source Index
Primary Sources
- [1]
- [2]Declaration of Flavio de Abreu, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas (D. Minn. Doc. 59, Apr. 14, 2026) · declaration under penalty of perjury
- [3]Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post (Jan. 13, 2026), American Presidency Project archive of that day's posts · the President's own post; archive transcription
- [4]Federal Judicial Center, biographical directory entry for Patrick Joseph Schiltz · official biography
- [5]The White House, article on Minnesota's sanctuary policies (Jan. 16, 2026) · official publication
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
- [10]Docket, In re Subpoenas, No. 0:26-mc-00043 (D. Minn.), CourtListener (RECAP) copy, last updated Oct. 8, 2026 · court docket; public mirror
- [11]Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, letter to Governor Tim Walz (Jan. 24, 2026) · the letter; news-hosted copy
- [12]Acting Deputy Attorney General, Memorandum for All Department Employees, Interim Policy Changes Regarding Charging, Sentencing, and Immigration Enforcement (Jan. 21, 2025) · Department memorandum; copy published through DocumentCloud
- [13]The Attorney General, Memorandum for All Department Employees, Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives (Feb. 5, 2025) · Department memorandum; archive.org copy of the justice.gov file
- [14]
- [15]
- [17]
- [18]
- [19]
- [21]
- [22]
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26]
- [28]H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, Final Staff Report: The Cost of Doing Nothing (June 8, 2026) · congressional staff report; alleged
- [29]U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, press release on the Feeding Our Future jury verdict (Mar. 19, 2025), archive.org copy · official statement; archive.org copy
- [30]Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, statement of the Governor on the Justice Department investigation (June 15, 2026) · the Governor's own statement; his assertions
- [31]Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, press release on its records request to the Justice Department (June 15, 2026) · official statement; the office's assertions
- [33]U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California, press release on the guilty plea of Dana Williamson (May 14, 2026), archive.org copy · official statement; archive.org copy
Secondary Sources
- [6]Fox News, report that federal prosecutors opened an investigation of Walz and Frey (Jan. 16, 2026), print view · reliable secondary (attributed)
- [16]MPR News, report on the newly released court documents about the voided subpoenas (July 7, 2026) · reliable secondary (attributed)
- [20]NOTUS (the captured page names its publisher as The Washington Sun), report on the ruling (June 22, 2026) · reliable secondary (attributed)
- [27]The National News Desk (as carried by KOMO News), report that Vance referred Walz and Ellison to the Justice Department (June 9, 2026) · reliable secondary (attributed)
- [32]NPR, broadcast transcript on Governor Newsom's statement (as published by NHPR, June 16, 2026) · reliable secondary (attributed)