Federal Judge TORCHES DOJ — ‘Blatantly Unlawful’

Attorney General document with gavel on desk.

A federal judge just threw out the Department of Justice’s grand jury subpoenas targeting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — calling them “blatantly unlawful” — and the ruling is raising serious questions about whether the Trump DOJ overplayed its hand on immigration enforcement.

Story Snapshot

Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz quashed grand jury subpoenas targeting Gov. Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey, and Attorney General Keith Ellison, calling them “blatantly unlawful.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) launched the probe under Operation Metro Surge, claiming Minnesota officials obstructed federal immigration enforcement.
Legal experts said they saw no clear evidence that the officials actually impeded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration’s push to hold sanctuary-policy officials legally accountable.

Judge Calls DOJ Subpoenas Unlawful

Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the federal district court quashed grand jury subpoenas issued to Walz, Frey, and Ellison as part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) immigration enforcement probe. The judge found the subpoenas were issued for “forbidden purposes” and described them as “blatantly unlawful.” He concluded the DOJ was trying to “harass” Minnesota leaders over their immigration policies rather than pursue a legitimate criminal case. ^[13]

The DOJ probe was tied to Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement push in the Minneapolis area. Investigators sought records and testimony about whether state and city officials refused to honor ICE detainer requests, hindered enforcement operations, or surveilled federal immigration officers. The subpoena targeting Mayor Frey was notably broad — covering a wide range of communications and records rather than pointing to a specific, proven act of obstruction. ^[12]

What the DOJ Was Investigating

The core allegation was that Walz, Frey, and other Minnesota officials actively blocked federal immigration agents from doing their jobs. Sanctuary policies — which limit local cooperation with ICE — have long been a flashpoint between the Trump administration and Democrat-run cities and states. The DOJ argued these officials crossed the line from policy disagreement into criminal obstruction. That is a serious charge, and one the administration clearly wanted to press through a grand jury. ^[16]

Legal experts quoted in the Star Tribune said they had not seen evidence that the officials actually impeded federal immigration enforcement in a criminal sense. The subpoenas appeared to cast a wide net — seeking records on detainer compliance, public statements, and internal communications — rather than zeroing in on a specific illegal act. That kind of broad sweep is exactly what courts look for when deciding if a subpoena crosses the line. ^[12]

A Setback, But the Bigger Fight Continues

For conservatives who have watched sanctuary cities shield illegal immigrants from deportation for years, the DOJ’s effort to hold these officials accountable was long overdue. Walz and Frey have been vocal opponents of Trump’s immigration agenda. The idea that local politicians can simply ignore federal law — and face zero consequences — is exactly the kind of government defiance that frustrates law-abiding Americans. ^[11]

BREAKING: Federal Judge BLOCKS Trump subpoenas for Gov Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey – The Right Scoop… WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND ANSWER TO WHERE OUR US TAXPAYER MONEY WENT & WHY the judge is protecting them 😡 https://t.co/o9psCOTyIZ

— Tracy (@TracyD2019) June 22, 2026

The ruling is a real setback for the administration, but it does not settle the larger policy war. The judge’s decision focused on how the subpoenas were issued — their scope and purpose — not on whether sanctuary policies are legal or whether the officials’ conduct was appropriate. The DOJ can still pursue the matter through other legal tools if it has solid evidence. What it cannot do is use a grand jury as a pressure campaign when the factual record does not support it. The Justice Manual itself requires subpoenas to be “narrowly drawn” and tied to essential evidence. This ruling suggests that standard was not met. ^[13]

What Comes Next

The full written order from Judge Schiltz has not been made public, so the exact legal defects in the subpoenas remain unclear. It is not yet known whether the DOJ plans to appeal or pursue a narrower investigation. What is clear is that the fight over immigration enforcement between the Trump administration and Democrat-led states is far from over. Courts, not just politics, will continue to shape where the boundaries are drawn — and both sides know it. ^[11]