The Justice Department has failed as part of its ongoing effort to indict Democratic Party leaders. Worse, the judge issued a blistering ruling in which he alleged the Justice Department was abusing the grand jury process, possibly in an "unlawful" way.
The case involved Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Mayor Jacob Frey.
According to Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney, on Monday, "Judge Patrick Schiltz ... quashed several DOJ grand jury subpoenas aimed Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey, saying they were part of a retaliatory effort over their refusal to aid Trump admin immigration enforcement efforts."
"The Court orders that a miscellaneous matter be opened and that this order be unsealed and docketed in the matter," the judge said in the order. But the judge went further, attacking the Justice Department for "abusing the grand jury process" by targeting the officials.
"Ordinarily, proceedings and materials concerning a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena would be highly likely to reveal grand jury materials," wrote Judge Schiltz. "In this case, however, the existence of the grand jury matter, as well as the existence of the subpoenas themselves, have already been publicly revealed — most likely by the Department. Moreover, nothing in this order or the materials submitted to the court could possibly compromise a criminal investigation; as the court has explained at length, the Department is not conducting a criminal investigation, but is instead using the grand jury process for other (unlawful) purposes."
The judge also lambasted President Donald Trump's administration as a whole for the "well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the President's political and personal adversaries."
At one point in the ruling, the judge noted that the subpoenas were seeking "broad categories of materials" that dated back to January 1, 2025, which was a year before the Homeland Security effort, known as "Operation Metro Surge," even began.
He even used a states' rights argument, claiming that the federal government was overstepping its authority.
"It is important to stress, once again, that the Constitution forbids the federal government from forcing states or their political subdivisions to enforce federal law. 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," the judge wrote.
