A certain type of legal document has significance even before it is read. With the full force of the Justice Department behind it, a federal subpoena shows that the government is keeping an eye on things and demands records and compliance. The message felt less like law enforcement and more like something else entirely when six of those documents ended up on the desks of Minnesota’s top Democratic officials earlier this year.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz saw it that way, at least. The George W. Bush appointee used language that is uncommon in formal judicial opinions in a decision that was made public on Monday. He found that the subpoenas were intended to coerce, harass, and retaliate against officials who had publicly opposed the Trump administration’s immigration raids in the Twin Cities rather than to pursue a legitimate criminal investigation. He called the Department of Justice’s purported investigatory purpose “risible”—that is, absurd.
Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, Mayor Kaohly Her of St. Paul, and representatives from Ramsey and Hennepin counties were the targets of the subpoenas. According to the Department of Homeland Security, they were issued in January during the height of Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement action that dispatched thousands of agents into Minnesota and led to the arrest of over 4,000 undocumented immigrants. There was an immediate backlash against the operation. The streets were crowded with protesters. It was deemed an overreach by state officials. The outrage increased when two Americans were shot and killed by federal agents.
It now seems that the administration opened a grand jury investigation to determine whether the officials’ public opposition qualified as obstruction of federal law in response to that criticism. Legal observers were taken aback by that framing alone. Generally speaking, criticizing a government policy—even loudly and repeatedly—has not been regarded as a federal offense. Practically speaking, the DOJ seemed to be inquiring as to whether elected officials could face legal action if they disagreed with Washington.
They cannot, according to Judge Schiltz’s 30-page ruling. He discovered “overwhelming” evidence that the subpoenas were issued to exert pressure rather than to look into a real crime. He pointed out that senior DOJ officials had publicly threatened sanctuary-policy states on multiple occasions, and the department had failed to provide even one credible investigative explanation for its actions in court. He wrote that states are expressly allowed by the Constitution to refuse to take part in federal immigration enforcement. That isn’t a barrier. Federalism is that.
That final point is worth pausing on. The Tenth Amendment claim at the heart of this decision is not new; it has been the subject of years of immigration-related litigation. However, the fact that a Republican-appointed judge used it so vehemently against a Republican administration is noteworthy. Schiltz did not use hedging. He declared it “unlawful” to use the grand jury process for political ends and nullified all six subpoenas.
According to Governor Walz, the inquiry is “politically motivated, unconstitutional and meritless.” He sounded unsurprised. As this case develops, it seems that many of the officials targeted had anticipated something similar: legal pressure disguised as a criminal investigation. That expectation alone provides insight into the current state of affairs between some states and the federal government.
In a statement, the DOJ stated that it “takes the unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations extremely seriously” and that it will keep looking into these issues. It did not consider the decision to be a defeat.
It’s unclear if that stance will continue in the upcoming months. Monday’s decision did set a limit, at least for the time being. The judge who made the decision apparently thought the government’s arguments were not only weak but also unworthy of serious consideration.
