Judge uses Trump DOJ’s own words to corner federal lawyer over Minnesota 'quid pro quo'

U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez probed the Justice Department on Monday over whether a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) should be issued against the federal government after the recent slaying of a second Minneapolis citizen.

Speaking to federal lawyer Brantley Mayers, Judge Menendez questioned the purpose of the surge of federal agents and whether it was to get the state and cities to change their policies, wrote legal reporter Chris Geidner of the "Law Dork" newsletter.

Geidner recounted that Mayers attempted to say that the federal goal was to enforce federal law, but Judge Menendez pointed to statements from top Trump officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In a recent letter to Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Bondi said she would ensure that all federal agents were withdrawn if he turned over all voting records in the state.

"How am I supposed to interpret [Bondi's letter]" other than that if the state/cities change these policies, 'then this will end?'" the judge asked, according to Geidner.

Meyers said that even if the policies change and the surge is relaxed, it still isn't a Tenth Amendment issue, because the "stated" reason for the surge is valid enforcement of federal law.

Menendez asked if Meyers said, "We are here until and unless you change your policies," would that be a 10th Amendment anti-commandeering problem?

Meyers answered: "No."

She then asked about Trump's comments, "Minnesota, your day of retribution is here."

"That doesn't negate the fact that legitimate law enforcement is going on," said Meyers.

Menendez asked if there was "no limit" to the number of agents Trump's administration could send. Meyers didn't answer the question, responding only that it isn't a Tenth Amendment issue.

"Is the executive trying to achieve a goal through force that it can't achieve through the courts?" the judge asked, referencing the Bondi letter again.

“It concerns me that Attorney General Bondi’s letter cites three things that are the subject of pending litigation before this court,” the judge said, according to Adam Klasfeld, who writes the "All Rise" Substack.

She then referred to a statement from Tom Homan, Trump's executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

Homan said, "If you want less officers on the street, then let us in the jails."

So, Menendez questioned if Meyers was using the idea of "law enforcement" as a catch-all.

"Your position is that it doesn’t matter how clear that the quid pro quo" is, Klasfeld quoted the judge saying.

"I have all of these quotes in the record. You're telling me that I'm reading them wrong," the judge said. "What do I have in the record to show that the surge is to make up for the harms caused by the policies?"

Meyers maintained that the surge has nothing to do with a coercion campaign to change the state's policies.

Geidner added, "Mayers is trying mightily to argue that any challenges to actions in Minnesota can be brought in separate litigation and are not proper under a Tenth Amendment claim."

Legal analyst Klasfeld agreed with the assessment.

"This was an uphill battle for the state of Minnesota — but Pam Bondi's letter may have turned it into a viable one, if not today, down the line," he wrote on BlueSky.

See the full thread here.