xxxx
Read full text:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
26-mc-43 PJS
IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS
Nos. 2022R00519-A, 2022R00519-B,
2022R00519-C, 2022R00519-D,
2022R00519-E,2022R00519-F
ORDER
Joseph S. Teirab and Flavia S. de Abreu, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, for the United States.
Joseph T. Dixon, Manda M. Sertich, Amanda M. Mills, Erik E. Money, and
Megan M. Helstrom, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A., for Governor Tim
Walz.
Liz Kramer, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, for the
Office of the Governor of Minnesota.
Marshall Miller, Sean Hecker, Trisha Anderson, and Kaitlin Konkel,
HECKER FINK LLP; Andrew Mohring, GOETZ & ECKLAND P.A., for
Mayor Jacob Frey.
Kristyn Anderson, Daniel Abelson, and Heather P. Robertson,
MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for the Office of the Mayor
of Minneapolis and the City of Minneapolis.
Brendan V. Johnson, Timothy Billion, and Bahram Samie, ROBINS
KAPLAN LLP, for Mayor Kaohly Her and the City of St. Paul.
Nicole Engisch, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP; Surya Saxena, Nicholas
Scheiner, Emily M. McAdam, and Farah N. Famouri, GREENE ESPEL
PLLP, for Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Liz Kramer and Timothy C. Rank, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE, for the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General.
Steven L. Schleicher, MASLON LLP, for the Ramsey County Board of
Commissioners.
FILED lo!\ ::J l 1.AJLl(J
KATE ~ FOGA~TY
JUDGMENT ENTD
DEPUTY CLERK ~
---CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 29
Ben Schweigert, Alan A. Martinson, and Brittany McCormick,
HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for Hennepin County.
Matthew Ebert and Samantha Pauley, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, for
Members of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
On January 20, 2026, six federal grand-jury subpoenas were served on the record
custodians for (1) the Minnesota Governor's office; (2) the Minneapolis Mayor's office;
(3) the St. Paul Mayor's office; (4) the Minnesota Attorney General's office; (5) the
Ramsey County Board of Commissioners; and (6) the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners. Broadly speaking, the subpoenas require the production of records
relating to enforcement of federal immigration laws going back to January 1, 2025.
This matter is before the Court on six motions to quash the subpoenas. The
moving parties are Governor Tim Walz, in.his personal capacity; the Office of the
Governor; Mayor Jacob Frey, in his personal capacity; the Office of the Mayor of
Minneapolis; the City of Minneapolis; Mayor Kaohly Her; the City of St. Paul; Attorney
General Keith Ellison; the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General; the Ramsey
County Board of Commissioners; Hennepin County; and Members of the Hennepin
-2-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 3 of 29
County Board of Commissioners.1 For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted,
and the subpoenas are quashed.
I. BACKGROUND
The following factual background is taken from the news reports and other
publicly available sources cited in the moving parties' briefs. The U.S. Department of
Justice ("Department") raised no objection to movants' reliance on these sources and
did not dispute the movants' description of the facts gleaned from these sources.
From the beginning of his current term in office, President Trump and members
of his administration have taken aim at so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions-that is,
jurisdictions "that limit the use of local resources to assist in federal immigration
enforcement." City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Trump, 783 F. Supp. 3d 1148, 1161 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
President Trump has repeatedly insulted Minnesota generally and its Somali
1The government has not challenged the moving parties' standing to bring the
motions to quash. Whether Article III standing is necessary to bring a motion to quash
a grand-jury subpoena appears to be an unsettled question. Contrast In re Grand Jury
Subpoenas Nos. [Redacted] & [Redacted], No. MC 26-12 GEB), 2026 WL 710202, at *4
(D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2026) ("Unlike with challenges to Article III standing, one can waive
challenges to standing to quash a subpoena."), reconsideration denied, 2026 WL 1224046
(D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2026), with In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133, 142 (3d Cir. 2012) (" Although
the Government does not challenge Appellants' standing, we are obliged to address it
sua sponte."). Even if Article III standing is necessary, however, there is no question that
at least one movant with respect to each subpoena possesses such standing.
Specifically, the official movants are each seeking to quash subpoenas directed to
records belonging to them or their offices, and thus they clearly have ''a sufficiently
important, legally-cognizable interest in the materials or testimony sought." In re Grand
Jury, 705 F.3d at 142 (cleaned up).
-3-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 4 of 29
population in particular;2 targeted Democratic-led cities for expanded deportation
efforts;3 asserted that Democratic officials who oppose the deployment of National
Guard troops for immigration enforcement should be jailed;4 issued multiple executive
orders threatening to cut off federal funding to "sanctuary" jurisdictions;5 and sued
Minnesota and some of its political subdivisions seeking to invalidate state and local
provisions limiting assistance to federal immigration officials. United States v.
Minnesota, No. 25-CV-3798 (ECT/JFD), ECF No. 1 at 32~33 (D. Minn. filed Sept. 29,
2025).
In December 2025, the Trump administration launched "Operation Metro
Surge," a sweeping immigration-enforcement operation in Minnesota. At the height of
2See, e.g., Howard Thompson, Pres. Trump rails against Somalis: 'They've destroyed
Minnesota', Fox 9, Dec. 3, 2025, https://perma.cc/B5V2-G69A (reporting that President
Trump called Mayor Frey a "fool," said Governor Walz "should be ashamed," told Rep.
Ilhan Omar to "go back to your own country," and called Minnesota a "hellhole").
3Samantha Waldenberg & Priscilla Alvarez, Trump orders ICE officers to expand
deportation efforts in Democratic cities, CNN, June 16, 2025, https://perma.cc/88DS-TG5B.
4Michelle L. Price & Sophia Tareen, Trump says Illinois governor and Chicago mayor
should be jailed as they oppose Guard deployment, AP News, Oct. 8, 2025,
https://perma.cc/L7D9-UV AD; see also Maria Sacchetti & Jeremy Roebuck, DO] threatens
to prosecute local officials over immigration enforcement, Wash. Post, Jan. 22, 2025,
https://perma.cc/8N4H-HXVX.
5See Exec. Order No. 14,159 § 17, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 Gan. 20, 2025); Exec. Order
No. 14,218, 90 Fed. Reg. 10581 (Feb. 19, 2025); Exec. Order No. 14,287, 90 Fed. Reg. 18761
(Apr. 28, 2025).
-4-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 5 of 29
the surge, more than 3,000 Department of Homeland Security ("OHS") agents were
working in the state.6 The surge was the largest civil immigration enforcement
operation in DHS history,7 despite the fact that the percentage of Minnesota's
population consisting of undocumented immigrants is estimated to be less than half the
national average.8 During the surge, there were widespread reports of DHS agents
engaging in abusive and dangerous tactics seemingly designed to escalate tensions and
destabilize the conununity.9 Also during the surge, two American citizens-Renee
6JCE in MN: More than 3,000 federal agents in MN for Operation Metro Surge, DOJ
attorney says, Fox 9, Jan. 26, 2026, https://perma.cc/B6QQ-CWED.
7Rebecca Santana & Mike Balsamo, Homeland Security plans 2,000 officers in
Minnesota for its 'largest immigration operation ever', AP News, Jan. 6, 2026,
https://perma.cc/KP7D-HTB2.
8Cameron Macht, The Role of Undocumented Immigrants in Minnesota's Workforce,
Minn. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., March 2025, https://perma.cc/J58B-9M3Q.
9Katelyn Vue, U.S. citizen offered to show I.D. but was arrested by immigration officers
in Cedar-Riverside, Sahan Journal, Dec. 9, 2025, https://perma.cc/CMMS-PGGP; No school
for MPS rest of the week; Apparent ICE presence at Roosevelt High School causes choatic scene,
KSTP, Jan. 8, 2026, https://perma.cc/CS7L-JGXY; Shaquille Brewster, Natasha Korecki &
Nicole Acevedo, Immigration agents deploy tear gas, pepper spray in Minneapolis as
confrontations with protesters grow, NBC News, Jan. 13, 2026, https://perma.cc/9256-74YS;
Joe Sommerlad, Woman dragged from car by ICE agents yells 'I'm disabled' in chaotic scene in
Minneapolis, The Independent, Jan. 14, 2026, https://perma.cc/W4LA-H6UJ; Maia
Coleman, ICE Arrest of a Citizen, Barely Dressed, Sows Fear in Twin Cities, N.Y. Times, Jan.
21, 2026, https://perma.cc/3ZKU-9445; Joe Augustine, ICE agents are detaining kids .. from
teens to toddlers, Fox 9, Jan. 23, 2026, https://penna.cc/PFT8-EGXU; Priscilla Alvarez,
Chris Boyette & Amanda Musa, 5-year-old boy taken by ICE in Minneapolis area being held
with father at Texas facility, CNN, Jan. 23, 2026, https://perma.cc/Z8P3-AKA V; Lisa
(continued ... )
-5-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 6 of 29
Good and Alex Pretti-were killed by OHS agents.10
On January 12, 2026, the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St.
Paul filed a lawsuit challenging Operation Metro Surge. See Minnesota v. Noem, No. 26-
CV-0190 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn. 2026). The next day, President Trump posted a message
on social media implying that Minnesota officials' lack of cooperation with federal
immigration officials was allowing "thousands of already convicted murderers, drug
dealers and addicts, rapists, violent released and escaped prisoners, dangerous people
from foreign mental institutions and insane asylums, and other deadly criminals too
dangerous to even mention" to roam free and promising the "GREAT PEOPLE OF
MINNESOTA" that "THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING!"11
President Trump also threatened to cut off all federal funding to Minnesota and other
"sanchrnry" states and cities, ominously warning that "Minnesota is going to have to
9( ... continued)
Kashinksy & Natalie Fertig, 'Our cities are no longer safe': GOP mayors condemn. Trump
immigration enforcement, Politico, Jan. 28, 2026, https://perma.cc/5QTY-7MAV.
10Aaron C. Davis & Jonathan Baran, Video shows ICE agent in Minneapolis fired at
driver as vehicle veered past him, Wash. Post, Jan. 8, 2026, https://perma.cc/XSX2-65SD;
Cheryl W. Thompson, Man shot dead by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, NPR,
Jan. 24, 2026, https://perma.cc/W78Z-S4GZ.
11Donald Trump, Truth Social, Jan. 13, 2026, https://perma.cc/4PR9-S5AS.
-6-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 7 of 29
take care of itself for a little while."12 On January 14, then-Deputy Attorney General
Todd Blanche accused Walz and Frey of "encouraging violence against law
enforcement" and vowed that he would stop their "terrorism by whatever means
necessary."13
Beginning just a couple of days later, on January 16, a number of media outlets
reported that the Department was investigating Walz and Frey for impeding federal
law-enforcement officers and planned to issue grand-jury subpoenas to the two
officials.14 One outlet identified one of its sources as a "U.S. official."15
The same day that news of the investigation and subpoenas first leaked,
members of the Trump administration made public statements directly or indirectly
claiming that Minnesota officials were breaking the law by opposing the
12Jeff Wald, President Trump cutting federal funding to Minnesota starting Feb. 1, Fox
9, Jan. 13, 2026, https://perma.cc/56LH-CX5S.
13Todd Blanche, X, Jan. 14, 2026, https://perma.cc/ASZ4-LAZF. Notably,
Blanche's post was in response to a report of an assault on ICE agents that turned out to
be fabricated by the agents. Those agents are reported to be under federal investigation.
Lauren Mascarenhas & Caroll Alvarado, ICE's story of a Minneapolis shooting Jell apart,
CNN, Apr. 7, 2026, https://perma.cc/3BJ4-XWYL.
14See, e.g., Perry Stein, Justice Dept. launches criminal investigation of Minnesota
governor, Wash. Post, Jan. 16, 2026, https://perma.cc/EQZ5-GMRP; Camilo Montoya-
Galvez, Jennifer Jacobs & Sarah N. Lynch, DO] investigating Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis
Mayor Jacob Frei; over alleged conspiracy to impede immigration agents, CBS News, Jan. 17,
2026, https://perma.cc/MTA2-AQWE.
15Montoya-Galvez et al., supra n.14.
-7-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 8 of 29
administration's conduct in Minnesota. The White House website published an article
entitled "Minnesota's 'Sanctua1y' Defiance Has Consequences." That article asserted
that "the responsibility for the enhanced enforcement operations in Minnesota-and the
tension and violence-lies squarely with these [state and local] officials who refuse to
partner with the Trump Administration and instead put their Radical Left agenda over
public safety and the rule of law."16 Blanche asserted in an interview that "[w]hen the
governor or the mayor threaten our officers, when the mayor suggests that he's
encouraging citizens to call 911 when they see ICE officers, that is very close to a federal
crirne."17 Then-Attorney General Pamela Bondi posted on social media, "A reminder to
all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."18
As noted, the subpoenas were served on January 20 and are directed to the
custodians of records for the Governor's office, the Minneapolis and St. Paul Mayors'
offices, the Attorney General's office, and the Boards of Commissioners for both
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. Each subpoena requires the custodian to appear,
testify, and produce specific materials within his or her custody and control.
16The White House, Minnesota's 'Sanctuary' Defiance Has Consequences, Jan. 16,
2026, https://perma.cc/6VPE-J8O7.
17 Alexandra Koch, David Spunt & Matt Finn, Federal prosecutors open investigation
into Walz, Frey over alleged impeding of law enforcement, Fox News, Jan. 16, 2026,
https://perma.cc/C8Y9-7BZQ.
18Pamela Bondi, X, Jan. 16, 2026, https://perma.cc/695E-UQSU.
-8-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 9 of 29
The subpoenas are not identical, but all of them direct the production of
extremely broad categories of records relating to federal immigration enforcement in
Minnesota. For example, the subpoena served on the records custodian for the
Minneapolis Mayor's office directs the production of the following:
1. 2. 3. 4. All records, including but not limited to communications, policies,
manuals, procedures, directives, commands, instructions, guidance,
reference guides, and suggestions, issued by the Office of the Mayor of
Minneapolis (Mayor's Office), since January 1, 2025, relating to federal
immigration enforcement in the State of Minnesota.
All records, including but not limited to communications, policies,
manuals, procedures, directives, commands, instructions, guidance,
reference guides, and suggestions, issued or possessed by the Mayor's
Office, since January 1, 2025, relating to cooperation or lack of cooperation
with federal immigrntion authorities.
All records, from January 1, 2025 to the present, including but not limited
to communications, policies, manuals, procedures, directives, commands,
instructions, guidance, reference guides, and suggestions, relating to the
Mayor's Office response to requests for assistance from immigration
officials (including any records tending to show a refusal to come to the
aid of immigration officials).
From January 1, 2025 to the present, all records and communications
relating to compliance or lack of compliance with immigration detainers
in the State of Minnesota.
5. From January 1, 2025 to the present, all communications, including but not
limited to emails, letters, memoranda, text messages, chats, lMs, and voice
recordings, within the custody and control of the Mayor's Office, to and
from any political or governing body within the State of Minnesota,
including the Office of the Governor of the State of Minnesota, the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and the Minneapolis Police
Deparhnent, relating to federal immigration enforcement in the State of
-9-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 10 of 29
Minnesota.
6. 7. 8. From January 1, 2025 to the present, all guidance, presentations,
directives, or training literature provided to the Mayor's Office employees,
contractors, or Minnesota residents regarding cooperating or complying
with immigration officers[.]
From January 1, 2025 to the present, all guidance, presentations,
directives, or training literature provided to the Mayor's Office employees,
contractors, or Minnesota residents relating hindering [sic] doxxing,
identifying, or surveilling immigration officers.
From January 1, 2025 to the present, all guidance, presentations,
directives, or training literature issued to the Mayor's Office employees,
contractors, or Minnesota residents regarding interacting with
immigration officers[.]
Mot. of Minneapolis & Frey to Quash, Ex. A
On January 24, four days after the subpoenas were served, Bondi wrote a letter to
Governor Walz.19 The letter demanded that the Governor "restore the mle of law,
support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota" by doing the
following: (1) sharing all of Minnesota's records on Medicaid and Food and Nutrition
Service programs with the federal government; (2) repealing "sanctuary policies" and
requiring all detention facilities to cooperate fully with ICE; and (3) giving the
Department access to Minnesota's voter rolls. The letter's concluding paragraph stated
that "[t]he time has come for state and local officials in your state to change course ....
Minnesota can and should be a partner with this administration." According to the New
19Pamela Bondi, Letter to Tim Walz, Jan. 24, 2026, https://perma.cc/QF5D-6B6P.
-10-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 11 of 29
York Times, Trump aides helped draft the letter.20 Bondi described the letter on Fox
News, saying that 1'[w]e said [Walz] BETTER support President Trump, the men and
women in law enforcement."21
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Grand juries have broad investigatory powers. See United States v. Calandra, 414
U.S. 338, 343 (1974) ("Traditionally the grand jury has been accorded wide latitude to
inquire into violations of criminal law.11
). A grand jury can demand the testimony of
witnesses and the production of evidence without any showing of probable cause. See
United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991). "The jurors may act on tips,
rumors, evidence offered by the prosecutor, or their own personal knowledge." United
States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 15 (1973). Grand juries are generally "unrestrained by the
technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials."
Calandra, 414 U.S. at 343; see also United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 49 (1992)
C'[A]lthough the grand jury may not force a witness to answer questions in violation of
the Fifth Amendment's constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, our cases
suggest that an indictment obtained through the use of evidence previously obtained in
20Alan Feuer & Glenn Thrush, Justice Dept. Playbook in Minnesota: Investigate Foes,
Protect Allies, N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 2026, https://perma.cc/8REW-BW2U.
21 Pamela Bondi, X, Jan. 24, 2026, https://perma.cc/DV5T-VSU7.
-11-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 12 of 29
violation of the privilege against self-incrimination is nevertheless valid." (cleaned up)).
"The investigatory powers of the grand jury are nevertheless not unlimited."
R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 299. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2), a court may quash a grand-
jury subpoena "if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." In addition,
grand juries may not "select targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to
harass." R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 299; see also Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786, 805 (2020)
(explaining that "grand jmies are prohibited from engaging in 'arbitrary fishing
expeditions' and initiating investigations 'out of malice or an intent to harass"' ( quoting
R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 299)). A subpoena may be quashed if its "dominant" purpose is
improper, even if it was issued partly for valid reasons. United States v. Wadlington, 233
F.3d 1067, 1074 (8th Cir. 2000) ("It is well-settled that it is improper to summon a
witness before the grand jury 'for the sole or dominant purpose of preparing a pending
indictment for trial."' (quoting United States v. Puckett, 147 F.3d 765, 770 (8th Cir. 1998)));
see also In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Nos. [Redacted] & [Redacted], No. MC 26-12 (JEB), 2026
WL 710202, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2026) (" Almost all our sister circuits agree that a
\
subpoena should be quashed if its 'sole or dominant' purpose is improper ( or some
variation of those words)."), reconsideration denied, 2026 WL 1224046 (D.D.C. Apr. 3,
2026).
Likewise, a subpoena may be quashed as "unreasonable or oppressive" under
-12-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 13 of 29
Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2) even if it seeks relevant evidence. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena
Dated Aug. 14, 2019, 964 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting the Department's
argument that the grand jury is entitled to all relevant and unprivileged evidence and
holding that "a district court has discretion to quash a subpoena under Rule 17(c)(2) if it
'intrudes gravely on significant interests outside of the scope of a recognized privilege"'
(quoting In re Grand Jury, John Doe No. G.].2005-2, 478 F.3d 581, 585 (4th Cir. 2007)));
United States v. Kalter, 5 F.3d 1166, 1169 (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming grant of motion to
quash because "the burden of producing the records sought greatly outweighed any
relevance they might have to the case"); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855, 862-63
(8th Cir. 1956) (quashing an overbroad subpoena as unreasonable but finding that a
narrower subpoena more tailored to the documents likely to be relevant was
reasonable).
"[A] grand jury subpoena issued through normal channels is presumed to be
reasonable, and the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the recipient who
seeks to avoid compliance." R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 301; see also Universal Mfg. Co. v.
United States, 508 F.2d 684, 685 (8th Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (explaining that challengers
to a grand-jury subpoena bear the burden of overcoming the presumption of regularity
that attaches to grand-jury proceedings).
-13-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 14 of 29
B. Motions to Quash
The moving parties argue that the subpoenas should be quashed for a number of
reasons. The Court need address only one of those reasons: the moving parties'
contention that the subpoenas were issued as part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce
Mrnnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil
immigration laws and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so. The
Court agrees with the moving parties.22
Under the Tenth Amendment's "anti-commandeering" rule, the federal
government may not" command the States' officers, or those of their political
subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Printz v. United
States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) (invalidating federal law requiring state officials to
conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers); see also New York v.
United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992) ("The Federal Government may not compel the
States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."). Nor may the federal
government coerce or retaliate against states or political subdivisions who decline to
help the federal government enforce federal laws. See Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v.
Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519,578, 581 (2012) (plurality opinion) (explaining that the federal
22Because the Court agrees with the movants' Tenth Amendment argument, the
Court need not address the remaining bases on which they contend that the subpoenas
should be quashed. Notably, the Department's brief did not acknowledge, much less
engage with, movants' arguments with respect to the Tenth Amendment.
-14-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 15 of 29
government may not "indirectly coerce[] a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as
its own" and finding that the threat of withholding existing Medicaid funds to induce
states to accept the Medicaid expansion was an impermissible "gun to the head"). This
is as true in the context of immigration enforcement as it is in the context of other
federal regulatory programs. See United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865,891 (9th Cir.
2019) ("California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain
from assisting with federal [immigration enforcement] efforts.").
Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to
coerce them into taking official action-particularly official action that the federal
government cannot directly require those political opponents to take-is a blatantly
unlawful and unethical use the grand-jury process. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Nos.
[Redacted] & [Redacted], 2026 WL 710202, at *6 ("[I]f prosecutors are forbidden from
meddling with an official's duties, then they cannot use criminal investigations to
pressure him into enacting their preferred policies."). The only question, then, is
whether the challenged subpoenas were issued for one of these forbidden purposes.
The Court has no doubt that they were. On the one hand, the evidence that the
challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming. On the other
hand, the Department has struggled-without success-to identify a single plausible
-15-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 16 of 29
investigatory justification for the subpoenas.23 Cf In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Nos.
[Redacted] & [Redacted], 2026 WL 710202, at *7 (explaining that "the sh"ength of a
movant' s evidence of an improper purpose determines how much the Government
must show to substantiate its asserted proper purpose"). To elaborate:
First, the public record, as Tecited above, is replete with direct evidence of the
TTump administration-including the highest-ranking officials of the Department-
threatening and attempting to punish states and localities that have adopted
"sanctuary" policies, as well as attempting to coerce those states and localities to devote
resources to assist federal immigration enforcement. Just to cite some of the highlights:
• President Trump has repeatedly directed the withholding of federal
funding from "sanctuary" jurisdictions, sued Minnesota and its
political subdivisions to invalidate their "sanctuary" policies, and
unleashed vitriolic tirades against Minnesota officials for not
assisting the federal government in enforcing federal immigration
laws.
• The day after Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul filed a lawsuit
challenging Operation Meh·o Surge, President Trump posted a
message on social media criticizing Minnesota's failure to cooperate
with ICE and promising the "GREAT PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA"
that "THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING!"
Again, President Trump explicitly threatened "RETRIBUTION"
23 As noted, a party moving to quash a grand-jury subpoena normally bears the
burden of overcoming the presumption of regularity. Some of the movants argue that
the presumption should not apply here because, they contend, the subpoenas were not
"issued through normal channels." R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 301. The Court need not
address this issue because it finds that, even if the presumption applies, the moving
parties have overcome it.
-16-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 17 of 29
against Minnesota's political leaders for exercising their
constitutional right to decline to cooperate with ICE.
• Three days after President Trump threatened this
"RETRIBUTION," someone leaked the existence of the grand-jury
subpoenas directed to Governor Walz' s and Mayor Frey's offices to
multiple media outlets, at least one of which cited "U.S. officials" as
its source.
• Also on the day of the leaks, the significance of the subpoenas was
boosted by a seemingly coordinated media campaign that included
(1) the publication on the official White House website of an article
warning that "Minnesota's 'Sanctuary' Defiance Has
Consequences" and expressly linking "the enhanced enforcement
operations in Minnesota" with the conduct of state and local
"officials who refuse to partner with the Trump Administration";
(2) a media appearance by then-Deputy Attorney General Blanche
suggesting that the "governor" and "mayor" -that is, the officials
who were most closely tied to the two leaked subpoenas-may
have committed federal crimes; and (3) a post from then-Attorney
General Bondi with a warning to "all those in Minnesota: No one is
above the law."
• Finally, a few days after the subpoenas were served, Bondi sent a
letter to Walz demanding, among other things, that Minnesota
repeal its "sanctuary" policies. In an interview that same day,
Bondi characterized the letter as demanding that Walz "BETTER
support President Trump."
This course of events - in and of itself-establishes beyond reasonable dispute
that the subpoenas were a part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials
in Minnesota to assist the Trump administration in its enforcement of immigration laws.
And, of course, this campaign played out against the backdrop of the Trump
administration's well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate
-17-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 18 of 29
against and pressure the President's political and personal adversaries. See In re Grand
Jury Subpoenas Nos. [Redacted] & [Redacted], 2026 WL 710202, at *3 (observing that
"[b ]eing perceived as the President's adversary has become risky in recent years" and
citing numerous recent examples); id. at *8 (" A mountain of evidence suggests that the
dominant purpose [of the subpoenas at issue] is to harass [Federal Reserve Chair
Jerome] Powell to pressure him to lower [interest] rates.").
Second, the Department's asserted investigatory purpose for the challenged
subpoenas is risible. Recall that the subpoenas seek broad categories of
materials - going back to January 1, 2025, roughly a year before Operation Metro Surge
began-relating to federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota and state officials'
cooperation (or lack thereof) with federal immigration officials. It is important to stress,
once again, that the Constih1tion forbids the federal government from forcing states or
their political subdivisions to enforce federal laws. Indeed, the Supreme Court has
emphasized that this dual-sovereign design is a fundamental part of the Constitution,
intended to safeguard liberty from overreach by the federal government. See, e.g.,
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452,458 (1991) ("Perhaps the principal benefit of the
federalist system is a check on abuses of government power."). Consequently, the State
of Minnesota and its political subdivisions have the right-a right grounded in the
bedrock constitutional principle of federalism- to decline to devote their resources to
-18-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 19 of 29
furthering the Trump administration's enforcement of federal immigration laws. On
their face, therefore, the subpoenas are directed to investigating activity that is not only
legal, but constitutionally protected from interference by the ve1y federal government
that issued the subpoenas. Id. at 459 ("These twin powers will act as mutual restraints
only if both are credible. In the tension between federal and state power lies the
promise of liberty.").
The challenged subpoenas are extraordinarily broad. They are directed to a wide
swath of the state's political leadership, including the gove1nor, the attorney general,
the mayors of the state's two largest cities, and the boards of the state's two largest
counties. They seek materials that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally
protected conduct. The Department has launched a significant incursion into matters
that the Constitution reserves to sovereign states, and one would expect that the
Department would not have done so unless it was aware of compelling evidence of
criminal or at least suspicious behavior.
The Department claims that the subpoenas are part of an investigation into
possible violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and 18 U.S.C. § 111.24 Section
1324 criminalizes concealing an alien in knowing or reckless disregard of the fact that
24The Department also cites 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general conspiracy statute. The
Department did not identify an object of the conspiracy, but presumably the object
would be to violate one of the other cited statutes.
-19-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 20 of 29
the alien is illegally in the United States. Sections 1505 and 111, roughly speaking,
criminalize obstructing or interfering with a governmental function. The Department
points to four examples of state and local officials' conduct that, it contends, justify
launching an investigation into potential violations of these statutes and issuing the
subpoenas:25
• In December 2025, Minneapolis City Council Member Aurin Chowdhury
authored an amended "Separation Ordinance"26 requiring that any city
official who becomes aware of ICE activity report that information to the
City Council. The Department suggests that such information could be
"disseminated in a manner that enables individuals or organizations to
anticipate, evade, or interfere with federal enforcement actions.'1 Gov't
Response Br. at 6.
25 The Department initially identified five examples in its pre-hearing briet but
failed to provide any record support or citations to public documents to substantiate or
even fully identify them. At the hearing on the motions to quash, the Court ordered the
Department to provide the missing factual support. In its post-hearing submission1 the
Department admitted that it could find no verifiable source to support its claim that St.
Paul Mayor Kaohly Her vowed to "fight all subpoenas." Accordingly, the Department
has withdrawn "its prior characterization that officials refused to comply with
subpoenas and does not rely on that assertion as a basis for the issuance of the grand
jury subpoenas.11 Abreu Deel. <JI 7.
26The Separation Ordinance generally governs "the communication and
enforcement relationship" between Minneapolis and federal civil immigration
authorities. Minneapolis1 Minn. Ordinances tit. II,§ 19.10.
-20-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 21 of 29
•
•
In January 2026, in the course of publicly advocating that Governor Walz
enact an eviction moratorium, Minneapolis City Council Member Robin
Wansley stated that "In]o family should have to choose between keeping
a roof over their heads and risking being kidnapped by ICE."27
In late 2025, Ramsey County disseminated internal guidance via email
instructing employees that "no data or document should be provided to
the ICE agent, regardless of warrant or subpoena."28 Schleicher 2d Deel.
Ex.I.
•
At some unidentified time, Hennepin County disseminated h·aining
materials and held a virtual training for its staff that inshucted staff about
how they should respond if ICE agents present a warrant or demand to
apprehend someone. With respect to warrants, the training instructs staff
to ask for a few minutes to contact someone in leadership. With respect to
demands for apprehension, the training insh·ucts staff to provide no
information, refuse consent to entry, escalate to a supervisor, and engage
in "respectful stalling" (which is not defined). The training further
instructs that if the agent threatens to use or uses force, staff should not
obstruct the agent. Abreu Deel. <_[ 5 & Exs. 1-3.
One of the most obvious problems with these four examples is that two of them
involve legislative or advocacy activity by members of the Minneapolis City Council, an
independent political entity that is not a participant in this proceeding and (as far as the
27Robin Wonsley et al., Request for Committee Action, Jan. 15, 2026,
https://lims .rninneapolismn.gov /RCA/25984.
28Curiously, despite the fact that the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners
provided a copy of the guidance with its response brief, the Department's post-hearing
submission states that it cannot provide any record support for it. Abreu Deel.<_[ 6. The
Court proceeds on the assumption that the exhibit provided by the Ramsey County
Board contains the guidance at issue. To the extent that the Department may have been
referring to a different document, the Department has failed to provide support for such
a document, and the Court disregards its possible existence.
-21-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 22 of 29
Court is aware) was not served with a subpoena. So half of the examples of suspicious
activity cited by the Department involve people whom the Department did not
subpoena.
Even if these two examples were relevant, the connection between them and any
possible criminal conduct is so remote as to be spurious. The Department suggests that
requiring city officials to report known ICE activity to the City Council could result in
the dissemination of that information-and that dissemination of that information
could, in turn, result in other individuals evading or interfering with future ICE activity.
This reasoning piles speculation upon speculation, while also taking aim at perfectly
legal-indeed, constitutionally protected-behavior. As a general matter, any citizen
who happens across law-enforcement activity has a constitutional right to observe it, to
record it, and to mention it to anyone they'd like-including members of the
Minneapolis City Council. Cf Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2020)
(finding that the First Amendment right to observe and record police activity in public
is clearly established).
With respect to a single city council member's request that the Governor impose
an eviction moratorium: The Department does not explain how this connects to any
actual or suspected criminal activity. The Department points out that the council
member identified protection from ICE as one of the reasons why the Governor should
-22-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 23 of 29
im.pose a moratorium. The Department does not, however, attempt to argue that, as a
consequence of such a motive, the moratorium itself would have been illegal. Even if
the moratorium somehow violated one of the cited federal statutes-a dubious
proposition-advocacy, even of illegal conduct, is protected under the First
Amendment. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) ("[T]he constitutional
guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe
advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action."). In any event, the moratorium was never enacted, so nothing legal or illegal
resulted from it. Like the first justification, the second does not withstand scrutiny.
The other two justifications involve training and guidance from Hennepin and
Ramsey Counties about how staff should interact with ICE agents and other
immigration officials on county property. Hennepin County instructed staff that, when
presented with a warrant, they should ask for a few minutes to contact someone in
leadership. When an immigration agent demands to apprehend an individual, staff are
not supposed to provide information or consent to entry, but instead escalate to a
supervisor. Finally, if a federal agent threatens to use or uses force, staff are not to
obstruct the agent. Abreu Deel. Exs. 1- 3. Similarly, Ramsey County's guidance advises
employees to immediately notify a supervisor; inform the ICE agent that they do not
-23-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 24 of 29
have authority to grant access and do not consent to a search; leave the interpretation of
legal documents to legal counsel; and not personally provide any data or document to
the ICE agent, "regardless of warrant or subpoena." Schleicher 2d Deel. Ex. 1.
None of this is itself unlawful, nor does any of this encourage unlawful behavior.
To begin with, the county policies have no connection to any possible violation of 18
U.S.C. § 111, which requires proof of the use of force-that is, "actual physical contact"
or "a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire fear of
pain, bodily harm, or death." United States v. Street, 66 F.3d 969, 977 (8th Cir. 1995)
(quoting United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1348 (8th Cir.1993)). Hennepin County's
training actually forbade employees from interfering with immigration agents, by force
or otherwise.
With respect to potential violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a
county violates no law when it directs that sensitive matters-such as a law-
enforcement officer showing up on county property with a subpoena- should be
handled by supervisors and legal counsel rather than by receptionists and other
frontline employees. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that a policy that explicitly
instructed employees not to obstruct law-enforcement agents somehow resulted in
obstruction. In any event, one would expect that, before launching a sweeping
investigation into nearly the entire political structure of a sovereign state, the
-24-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 25 of 29
Department would have identified at least one instance in which a county employee
actually obstructed a law-enforcement officer after being told of his or her employer's
policy. Yet the Department has been unable to identify a single such instance.
To be clear, the Court agrees with the Department that a grand-jury subpoena
need not be supported by probable cause. At the same time, a grand-jury subpoena
cannot be issued for an improper purpose. The fact that connections between the
information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from
extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these
subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate.
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.
C. Unsealing
At the hearing on the motions to quash, the Court indicated its intent to unseal
this matter and asked the parties to notify the Court of any objection. The moving
parties-that is, the state and local officials and entities who are the supposed targets of
the supposed investigation-say that they do not object to unsealing (except that they
ask that four documents submitted as exhibits remain sealed). The Department
-25-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 26 of 29
opposes unsealing. It does not identify any specific concerns, but instead merely
alludes to the general policies underlying the need for grand-jury secrecy.
This is a collateral matter, however, not a "matter occurring before the grand
jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). That said, materials in a collateral proceeding should
nevertheless remain sealed to the extent that they could reveal a matter occurring before
the grand jmy. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6) ("Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to
grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary
to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.");
United States v. McDougal, 559 F.3d 837, 840 (8th Cir. 2009) ('"the secrecy of grand jury
proceedings also extends to collateral proceedings,' which might reveal matters
occurring before a grand jury" (quoting In re Newark Morning Ledger Co., 260 F.3d 217,
222 (3d Cir. 2001))).
Ordinarily, proceedings and materials concerning a motion to quash a grand-jury
subpoena would be highly likely to reveal grand-jury matters. h1 this case, however,
the existence of the grand-jury matter, as well as the existence of the subpoenas
themselves, have already been publicly revealed29 -most likely by the Department.
Moreover, nothing in this order or in the materials submitted to the Court could
possibly compromise a criminal investigation; as the Court has explained at length, the
29Walz's office, 5 other MN government offices served subpoenas in ICE obstruction.
investigation, Fox 9, Jan. 20, 2026, https://perma.cc/6ZWQ-VHUX.
-26-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 27 of 29
Department is not conducting a criminal investigation, but is instead using the grand-
jury process for other (unlawful) purposes. In addition, those on whom the subpoenas
were served-as well as those who appear to be the targets of the Department's misuse
of the grand-jury process-want this matter disclosed. Finally, the public has a very
strong interest in learning of this abuse of the grand-jury process by the Department.
For these reasons, the Court intends to unseal this order and all materials filed in
connection with this order (with the exception of the four exhibits identified below). Cf
In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Feb. 28, 2002, Mar. 26, 2003, Oct. 4, 2004, 472 F.3d 990,
996 (8th Cir. 2007) (remanding for the district court to "assess the overall need for
secrecy in this grand jury proceeding"). Before doing so, however, the Court will stay
the unsealing of this order for a few days to give the Department the opportunity to
challenge that unsealing in the court of appeals, if the Department wishes to do so.
Moreover, the Cornt will stay the unsealing of the briefs and exhibits filed in this matter
for a longer period of time to give the parties one final opportunity to identify any
additional materials that should remain sealed or be redacted.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
-27-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 28 of 29
1. 2. The motions to quash Subpoena Nos. 2022R00519-A, 2022R00519-B,
2022R00519-C, 2022R00519-D, 2022R00519-E, and 2022R00519-F are
GRANTED, and the subpoenas are QUASHED.
The Court ORDERS that a miscellaneous matter be opened and that this
order be unsealed and docketed in that matter on Monday, June 22, at
10:00 am.
3. The Court ORDERS that Exhibit 1 attached to the second declaration of
Steven Schleicher and Exhibits 1- 3 attached to the declaration of Flavio de
Abreu remain sealed.
4. As to the other materials filed in this matter:
a. b. On or before July 1, 2026, any party may file, in the miscellaneous
matter, a memorandum identifying additional documents that
should remain sealed or proposing redactions to documents that
otherwise may be unsealed. The memorandum must identify the
documents or proposed redactions with specificity and provide a
specific reason for continued sealing or redaction.
On or before July 15, 2026, a party opposing any proposed
continued sealing or proposed redactions may file a response.
-28-CASE 0:26-mc-00043-PJS Doc. 1 Filed 06/22/26 Page 29 of 29
c. If no party files a memorandum in compliance with <JI 4(a),the
Court will direct that this entire matter be unsealed and publicly
docketed in the miscellaneous matter save for the documents
identified in <jl 3 (which ,.._,ill be docketed tmder seal).
Dated: June 17, 2026
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-2
No comments:
Post a Comment