A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s effort to subpoena Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and several other state and local officials, ruling that the Justice Department used its investigatory powers improperly to pressure and retaliate against officials for resisting federal immigration enforcement. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz and unsealed Monday, concludes that the subpoenas were primarily intended to compel cooperation with the federal government’s crackdown on illegal immigration rather than to pursue a legitimate criminal investigation.

The subpoenas, served in January 2026, targeted Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and officials in Ramsey and Hennepin counties. They sought records related to allegations that these officials obstructed or impeded federal law enforcement activities. However, Judge Schiltz found “extremely weak to nonexistent” links between the requested materials and any possible criminal violation, noting that much of the information related to constitutionally protected conduct. The judge emphasized that Minnesota law permits state and local authorities not to use their resources to enforce federal immigration law.

In his ruling, Schiltz described the subpoenas as part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to coerce Minnesota officials into aiding with immigration enforcement, framing it as retaliation for their refusal to comply. He highlighted the administration’s failure to identify any plausible investigatory justification and cited a letter from then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi blaming Walz for unrest in the state. The letter, as well as ongoing tensions marked by confrontations between federal immigration officers and protesters following the fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, formed part of the context for the subpoenas.

The judge underscored constitutional principles, noting that the federal government cannot compel states or local governments to enforce federal laws. He described this dual-sovereignty design as fundamental to protecting liberty from federal overreach.

Minnesota officials hailed the decision as a victory for democracy and the rule of law. Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, condemned the Justice Department’s actions as politically motivated attacks on opponents, asserting the importance of protecting constitutional rights. Ellison called the use of criminal justice tools against political adversaries troubling, and city leaders Frey and Her described the subpoenas as retaliatory and inconsistent with democratic norms.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. A spokesperson previously stated that the department takes alleged obstruction of federal law enforcement seriously and intends to act in accordance with the law. It remained unclear whether the Justice Department planned to appeal the decision.

Separately, a federal judge also struck down a revamped federal database used in Trump’s election integrity efforts, citing privacy concerns and the aggregation of sensitive information, marking another judicial setback for the administration’s policies. Meanwhile, political tensions continue across states, including ongoing debates about election procedures.