'Extraordinarily broad': In rare move, judge tosses DOJ subpoenas to Walz in immigration case
The subpoenas were issued against the backdrop of the admin's immigration surge.
A federal judge on Monday tossed out multiple Justice Department subpoenas to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials tied to a federal investigation regarding the state's cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, according to a newly published legal opinion.
Patrick Schiltz, chief judge of the Minnesota federal district court, found that the subpoenas were "part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials" to aid the Trump administration in supporting federal immigration activities that "played out against the backdrop of the Trump administration's well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the President's political and personal adversaries."
"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," Schiltz wrote in his order released Monday.
The subpoenas, which were issued on Jan. 20 against the backdrop of the Trump administration's aggressive immigration surge in Minnesota that drew widespread protests, sought an expansive amount of information from Walz and others including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and Board of Commissioners.
In his opinion quashing the subpoenas, Schiltz lambasted the government for their "extraordinarily broad" request examining materials "that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct." It's almost unheard of for federal judges to quash criminal subpoenas from Justice Department prosecutors.
"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," Schiltz said.
Pointing to a series of statements from President Donald Trump, including social media posts previewing a "DAY OF RECKONING AND RETRIBUTION" was coming for Minnesota -- followed by a leak just three days later of a purported federal investigation in Walz and Frey -- Schiltz said there was a clear pattern established of the government using its powers purely to punish Trump's adversaries for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Schiltz also dinged the government for some of the examples that it previously filed to justify the subpoenas, which he said had such a remote connection to potential criminal conduct "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," Schiltz wrote. "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."
The order follows a similar move by the chief district judge in Washington, D.C., in March that quashed subpoenas tied to the DOJ's investigation of then-Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, after Judge James Boasberg determined the probe was based on no clear evidence and appeared purely rooted in Trump's animus towards Powell.
"Today's ruling is a victory for the rule of law and our democracy. A federal district judge found that the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into me and other Minnesota elected officials was politically motivated, unconstitutional, and meritless," Walz said in a statement.
"The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President's political opponents," Walz said. "This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration's lawlessness -- in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law."
Frey, in his own statement, said that "criticism of our government is not a crime."
"One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution," Frey wrote. "Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve."
In a statement responding to the ruling, a DOJ spokesperson did not say whether the Justice Department plans to appeal Schiltz’s order.
“The department takes the unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations extremely seriously and will continue to act in full compliance with the law to investigate these matters,” the spokesperson said.
Related Topics
Popular Reads
ABC News Live