Today, in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, the US District Court for the District of Minnesota invalidated several federal grand jury subpoenas issued against Minnesota state and local government officials, including Governor Tim Walz, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Federal District Judge Patrick Schiltz (a Republican George W. Bush appointee) ruled that the subpoenas were part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce Minnesota state and local government’s into giving up their immigration sanctuary policies – which limit assistance to federal efforts to deport migrants. It was part of a broader effort at coercion arising from “Operation Metro Surge,” which deployed some 3000-4000 federal agents to Minnesota, in part to pressure state and local officials.
Here’s an excerpt from the ruling:
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….
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)….
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
Minnesota 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….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)…. 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 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….
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…. 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 investigatory justification for the subpoenas….
The rest of the opinion recounts extensive evidence indicating that commandeering was a major motive for the federal government’s actions, and explains why there was no legitimate purpose for them.
I agree with Judge Schiltz’s reasoning. In previous articles in Lawfare and the Brennan Center State Court Report, I have explained why other aspects of Operation Metro Surge – the use of paramilitary violence and numerous illegal tactics against state and governments and protestors – also violate constitutional constraints on commandeering. And I have long emphasized these rules protect conservative “gun sanctuaries” no less than liberal immigration sanctuaries. If the federal government can sue armed coercion and bogus subpoenas to pressure states and localities into abandoning policies the White House doesn’t like, it would severely undermine our system of constitutional federalism.
Ironically, the anti-commandeering doctrine was first developed and articulated in a series of Supreme Court decisions written and supported primarily by conservative justices like Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Since then, it has become a key bulwark protecting liberal sanctuary cities and states. This is one of many ways in which judicial enforcement of structural limits on federal power is valuable to people across the political spectrum.
This decision is likely to be appealed. Hopefully, appellate judges will affirm the district court’s sound ruling.
