Both the Minnesota governor and Minneapolis mayor are under investigation by the DOJ on the grounds they are working to impede federal agents carrying out their immigration duties.
Here’s the report from CBS News:
The Justice Department is investigating Minnesota officials, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, over an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents, an extraordinary escalation in the Trump administration’s clash with Democratic leaders there, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.
One of the sources, a U.S. official, said the investigation stems from statements that Walz and Frey have made about the thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents deployed to the Minneapolis region in recent weeks.
Subpoenas are likely to be issued in the probe, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X Friday, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law.”
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who visited Minneapolis with FBI Director Kash Patel on Friday, appeared to make a vague reference to the investigation earlier this week.
“Walz and Frey- I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise,” Blanche wrote on X earlier this week.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday said: “Mayor Frey and Governor Walz have to get their city under control. They are encouraging impeding and assault against our law enforcement which is a federal crime, a felony.”
Noem has said rhetoric from Walz and Frey “perpetuated” violence directed at federal officers, arguing their comments undermined public trust in law enforcement and emboldened protesters on the ground.
The federal inquiry is focused on a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 372, one U.S. official told CBS News, which makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to prevent federal officers from carrying out their official duties through “force, intimidation or threats.”
The statute has historically been used in cases involving coordinated efforts to obstruct federal officials, including actions involving violence or threats. Public criticism of federal policy has historically been treated as protected speech unless involving direct coordination or incitement to obstruct law enforcement.
We’ll see where this goes. As I’ve said many times, I’m no legal beagle, but my gut tells me this won’t get very far in court. But we’ll have to see what evidence they come up with…