...
By Sam Stevenson
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump's administration suffered two significant legal setbacks this week as federal judges blocked efforts involving voter-roll verification and immigration enforcement in Minnesota, even as a separate Texas ruling delivered a rapid legal victory on immigration policy.
The most-consequential defeat came in Washington, D.C., where a federal judge halted the administration's use of Social Security data as part of a voter-verification system, ruling that federal officials violated multiple federal laws when they expanded access to sensitive government records.
At nearly the same time, a federal judge in Minnesota threw out Justice Department subpoenas targeting Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and other Democratic officials. The judge ruled that the department had abused the grand jury process to coerce and harass state officials.
Read More on Politics
And yet Trump's administration secured a significant win in Texas as a federal judge blocked a Biden-era rule that allowed immigration judges to indefinitely pause deportation cases.
Plaintiffs argue the dismantling of the bulk SAVE tool will prevent the wrongful purging of naturalized citizens, while local officials say the quashed subpoenas keep state executive records from federal overreach.
The decisions highlight the growing role of federal courts in checking executive power as Trump advances his second-term agenda. They also come amid ongoing legal battles over immigration enforcement and election administration.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comment on the rulings out of office hours. Neither agency immediately responded.
...
Key Points
- Federal judge blocks use of Social Security data for voter roll purges, citing privacy violations
- Minnesota judge quashes DOJ subpoenas, calling them retaliatory and politically motivated
- Rulings add to a broader pattern of judicial pushback against administration policies
- Separate Texas case delivers a swift victory, striking down Biden-era immigration rule
Minnesota Subpoenas Ruled Unlawful
A federal judge in Minnesota delivered a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department, throwing out subpoenas issued to several Democratic officials during a major immigration crackdown.
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz found that the subpoenas were not part of a legitimate criminal investigation but instead aimed at pressuring officials who opposed federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The George W. Bush-appointed chief judge wrote in a 29-page ruling dated June 17, but unsealed Monday, that their "dominant purpose" was to coerce cooperation and "to harass and retaliate against" those who refused.
The subpoenas, issued earlier this year, sought internal communications and records from figures including Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis, and Mayor of St. Paul Kaohly Her.
Schiltz said the conduct under investigation appeared to be lawful and constitutionally protected, raising concerns about the federal government using legal tools to target political opponents.
He described the effort as "part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials in Minnesota to assist the Trump administration in its enforcement of immigration laws."
The Minnesota case stems from the administration's controversial Operation Metro Surge deployment, which brought thousands of federal immigration agents into the Twin Cities and sparked widespread protests.
During the operation, two U.S. citizens—Renée Good and Alex Pretti—were shot and killed on January 7 and 24, 2026 by federal immigration agents in separate incidents that became flashpoints in the national debate over the crackdown. Good, a mother of three, was initially accused of trying to run over an ICE agent; Pretti was an intensive care nurse for the Veterans Affairs who was killed while filming immigration officers.
Their deaths drew national attention and intensified scrutiny of the administration’s approach; local prosecutors launched independent reviews after the FBI excluded state investigators, which is what the DOJ claimed was 'unlawful obstruction.' This also led to the department's retaliatory subpoena strategy.
According to the ruling, the Justice Department’s justification centered on potential obstruction of federal immigration enforcement, but the judge concluded that reasoning did not hold up under scrutiny.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said it was a victory for local constitutional resistance.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department said: "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."
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Social Security Data Ruling Blocks Voter Roll Plan
In a separate case, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the Trump administration from using Social Security data as part of a broader effort to build a national voter verification system.
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the administration violated federal privacy protections when it expanded a citizenship verification program to include Social Security data and other federal records.
The system, known as SAVE, is typically used to verify eligibility for public benefits but had been repurposed to identify potential noncitizens on voter rolls.
Sooknanan's 75-page ruling found that the DHS partnered with DOGE to allow bulk-checking of state voter files and linked the system with SSA data; this resulted in U.S. citizens being mistakenly flagged. The judge ordered the database to be dismantled.
The Joe Biden-appointed judge said the government had "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens" in its effort to assemble a large-scale database for voter verification. Sooknanan said: "This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens."
The judge ruled the government violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Her ruling halts the use of the expanded system, and found officials failed to follow required legal processes when rolling it out, including safeguards around data use and public notice.
The decision could complicate broader efforts to pressure states into adopting stricter voter registration checks.
Advocacy groups, including plaintiffs the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, argued the system risked misidentifying lawful voters, potentially leading to wrongful removals from voter rolls.
...
Texas Case Delivers Quick Immigration Win
Despite those setbacks, the administration secured a significant win in Texas.
A federal judge blocked a Biden-era rule that allowed immigration judges to indefinitely pause deportation cases.
Per League of Women Voters v. DHS in D.C., State of Texas v. DOJ in Texas, the Attorney General Ken Paxton and America First Legal filed the suit on Monday morning, the Trump DOJ filed a consent decree agreeing with the lawsuit hours later, and Judge Reed O'Connor entered final judgment the same day.
This coordinated consent decree model is a systematic tactic previously used by the administration, such as in the 2025 Texas Education Code tuition lawsuit.
O’Connor ruled that the policy exceeded statutory authority and ordered it vacated, effectively ending the use of administrative closure in immigration proceedings.
The court also barred federal agencies from enforcing similar rules without explicit legal backing.
It represents a clear policy victory for Trump’s immigration agenda, reinforcing efforts to speed up deportation proceedings and limit discretionary pauses in cases.
Contrasting Legal Landscape
Taken together, the rulings underscore a mixed legal landscape for Trump’s second-term agenda.
Federal courts are increasingly scrutinizing attempts to expand executive authority in areas such as elections and immigration enforcement at the state level, even as the administration finds success in rolling back previous policies through targeted legal challenges.
The result is a rapidly shifting legal environment, with major policy fights playing out in courtrooms across the country.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Sam Stevenson and James Debens
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines