Federal judge quashes DOJ grand jury subpoenas targeting Walz and Minnesota officials

A federal judge in Minnesota has quashed six Justice Department grand jury subpoenas served on Minnesota state and local officials on Jan. 20, ruling that the subpoenas were not being used for a legitimate criminal investigation. Instead, the judge found their dominant purpose was to pressure Minnesota officials to assist federal civil immigration enforcement and to harass and retaliate against them for refusing.

What the judge ruled

In an order filed June 22, 2026, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted motions to quash the subpoenas. The judge said the “dominant” purpose question can matter even when subpoenas are issued through normal grand-jury channels, and he concluded the DOJ was using the grand jury process for other, unlawful purposes.

The order also grounds the ruling in constitutional limits on federal power over states, citing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle: the federal government may not command state officers to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs and may not coerce or retaliate against jurisdictions that decline to help.

Who was targeted and what DOJ sought

According to the order, DOJ served the six subpoenas on record custodians for:

• the Minnesota Governor’s office (and Governor Tim Walz),
• the Minneapolis Mayor’s office (and Mayor Jacob Frey),
• the St. Paul Mayor’s office (and Mayor Kaohly Her),
• the Minnesota Attorney General’s office (and Attorney General Keith Ellison),
• the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, and
• the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.

The subpoenas broadly required production of records related to enforcement of federal immigration laws going back to Jan. 1, 2025.

Unsealing and the procedural timeline

Although the subpoenas were quashed, the court’s order also addresses public access. The judge directed that a miscellaneous matter be opened and that the order be unsealed and docketed on Monday, June 22, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

At the same time, the judge said he would stay unsealing “for a few days” to give the Department an opportunity to challenge the unsealing in the court of appeals. The court also stayed unsealing of briefs and exhibits for a longer period to let parties identify additional materials for continued sealing or redaction.

Four exhibits were ordered to remain sealed. Separately, the order sets deadlines for further sealing/redactions: parties may submit a sealing/redaction request memo by July 1, 2026, and a party opposing continued sealing or redactions may respond by July 15, 2026.

Reactions from officials

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and our democracy,” and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said it vindicated free speech and that criticizing government action is not a crime, according to reporting.

DOJ’s stated position, as reported publicly, is that it takes alleged obstruction seriously and will continue investigating.

Why this matters nationally

For readers nationwide, the decision is a reminder that grand jury subpoena power has limits. Courts can quash subpoenas where the dominant purpose is improper—especially when the effect is to pressure non-federal officials into assisting enforcement they say they cannot lawfully or constitutionally support.

As federal-state disputes over immigration enforcement and cooperation continue, this ruling may become another reference point for other officials considering whether and how to challenge subpoenas aimed at records tied to their policies, training, and public positions.

Sources

• Court order (D. Minn.): In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, No. 0:26-mc-00043 (unsealed June 22, 2026)
• AP News: Judge blocks DOJ subpoenas targeting Walz and other officials
• KUNC (NPR affiliate): Federal judge blocks DOJ subpoenas targeting records from Minnesota leaders