Where Political Speech Ends and Criminal Obstruction Begins

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Federal prosecutors are reportedly investigating Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for obstruction of justice. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed the investigation; it was reported by news organizations citing anonymous official sources. No charges have been filed. Federal prosecutors are investigating whether the officials’ rhetoric constitutes criminal conspiracy to obstruct federal law enforcement under a federal law that makes it illegal to work together to block law enforcement. The investigation centers on remarks they made about the deployment of roughly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minneapolis. Statements like Frey telling ICE officers to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis” and Walz characterizing the enforcement surge as a threat to residents’ safety.

The DOJ isn’t alleging the officials did anything beyond talk. They didn’t order police to block ICE vehicles. They didn’t organize protest networks or coordinate interference with specific operations. They criticized federal policy, loudly and crudely, the way elected officials have criticized federal policies since the founding of the republic. And now they’re under investigation for it.

What Happened in Minneapolis

The investigation emerged after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good on January 7, 2026. Ross fired three shots—head, chest, forearm—as Good began driving away, turning in the correct direction of traffic.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called it self-defense, claiming Good was attempting to run over Ross. Video evidence shows something different: a woman in a car, an agent standing in front of it, three shots fired as she drove away. Not toward him. Away.

The killing sparked massive protests. Frey made his profane demand that ICE leave the city. Both officials condemned what they characterized as an unconstitutional enforcement surge that had now killed an American citizen in her car. The DOJ’s response wasn’t to investigate the shooting. It was to investigate the officials who criticized it.

The Legal Theory Behind the Investigation

The law requires prosecutors to prove that two or more people worked together to prevent federal officers from performing their duties “by force, intimidation, or threat.” Not by criticism. Not by political opposition. By force, intimidation, or threat.

The prosecution theory goes like this: Walz and Frey made public statements. Those statements led members of the public to organize protests. Those protests interfered with ICE operations. Therefore, the officials’ speech constitutes obstruction.

At each link in that chain, independent human beings are making their own choices. Citizens decided to organize. They decided to protest. They chose how to conduct those protests. But prosecutors want to hold the officials liable for what happened at the end of that chain.

First Amendment Protections for Political Speech

In an important Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that speech can be punished only if it’s specifically intended to cause immediate illegal activity and is likely to incite or produce such action. Simply calling for illegal action, even loudly, isn’t against the Constitution.

Applied here: Did Walz and Frey specifically intend to incite protesters to block ICE operations? Was such interference the imminent, likely result of their speech? Or were they doing what elected officials do—expressing political opposition to federal policies they believe harm their constituents?

The DOJ theory seems to rest on a different foundation. Rather than alleging incitement, prosecutors seem to be arguing that what the officials said counts as “intimidation” or “threat” to federal officers. When a mayor says “get the fuck out of my city,” is that a threat? Or is it political speech, crude but protected?

If this theory works, it works everywhere. Environmental officials who criticize federal drilling permits and inspire protests that delay operations—conspiracy. Corporate executives who condemn SEC enforcement and spark shareholder opposition—obstruction. Civil rights leaders who organize boycotts that harm businesses—liable for the economic damage.

In a Supreme Court case about civil rights protests, the Court held that the First Amendment protected activists who organized a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi. Some merchants sued for damages, arguing the organizers’ speech incited third parties to cause economic harm. The Court ruled the speech was protected even though it predictably led to third-party action that caused injury. If officials’ statements opposing ICE operations inspire citizens to organize lawful protests, prosecutors can’t convert that protected activity into liability simply because protests sometimes interfere with federal operations.

What Prosecutors Would Need to Prove

First, prosecutors would need to prove Walz and Frey made a specific deal to do something illegal—not just that they had similar political views. They’d need emails, texts, meeting notes showing the two officials coordinated to intimidate ICE officers. Walz is the governor. Frey is a city mayor. Their statements, while thematically similar, weren’t presented as coordinated utterances from a unified conspiracy.

Second, that the statements constituted “intimidation” or “threat” in the legal sense. Intimidation usually means doing something to scare someone or force them to do what you want. When Frey said “get the fuck out” and Walz condemned the operations as violations of residents’ rights, were those threats? Or political opposition?

Third, they’d need to prove cause and effect—that specific ICE operations were planned, would have occurred absent the statements and protests, and didn’t occur specifically because protesters prevented them. Federal officers did conduct numerous operations throughout the period when the officials were making critical statements. Would there have been more arrests without the protests? It’s nearly impossible to prove something that didn’t happen. And even if some operations were delayed, how do you prove that resulted from Walz and Frey’s statements rather than from independent media coverage, citizen concern about Good’s killing, or protesters’ own decision-making?

Fourth, prosecutors would need to prove intent—that Walz and Frey specifically intended their statements to prevent federal officers from performing duties. If a mayor genuinely believes ICE operations are unconstitutional or harmful and makes statements hoping to influence opinion and policy, that’s different from intending to intimidate officers and prevent operations.

Experienced defense lawyers would point out problems at each of these stages.

How This Compares to Other Obstruction Cases

Federal prosecutors handle obstruction cases regularly. Someone threatens a witness. Someone destroys evidence. Someone lies to investigators or flees to avoid arrest. The typical obstruction defendant has acted with specific purpose to prevent law enforcement from accomplishing a particular objective.

Political rhetoric operates at a much more indirect level. Multiple layers of independent decisions by other people separate the speech from any actual obstruction: citizens hear it, decide to organize, plan protests, recruit participants, conduct them. At each stage, people are exercising their own judgment.

Governors and state officials frequently make strong statements criticizing federal decisions on pipelines, drilling permits, environmental regulations. They urge citizens and state agencies to resist what they characterize as federal overreach. Sometimes these statements precede citizen protests that physically interfere with federal operations. Federal prosecutors don’t typically charge these officials for their political statements.

Civil rights groups have issued calls for communities to resist ICE operations and protect undocumented immigrants from deportation. Advocacy organizations have used rhetoric far more specific and directed than Walz or Frey’s general statements. Federal prosecutors haven’t filed charges against these organizational leaders.

The same administration investigating immigration enforcement critics has simultaneously investigated other Democratic officials for unrelated matters. If prosecutors decline to charge environmental officials, protest organizers, and corporate leaders when their statements inspire third-party interference with federal operations, on what principled basis do they charge Democratic officials whose immigration enforcement criticism preceded protest activity?

The Chilling Effect on Political Speech

Even if this case never reaches trial, the investigation itself accomplishes something. It sends a message to every governor, every mayor, every state attorney general who might consider publicly opposing federal operations: Do so at your own risk.

State officials may become more cautious about expressing opposition to federal policies, even when they genuinely believe those policies violate state law or harm their constituents. This silences people—the threat of investigation alone makes officials afraid to speak up.

The line between protected political speech and obstruction, as drawn in this investigation, remains unclear. If a mayor can’t say “get the fuck out of my city” without facing federal investigation, what can they say? “We respectfully disagree with federal immigration policy”? “We have concerns about enforcement methods”? Where exactly is the boundary? When officials don’t know what’s allowed, they say nothing to be safe.

Federal Prosecutors Investigating Their Critics

Minnesota officials raised serious concerns about federal law enforcement. They argued that ICE operations violated civil rights, caused harm to communities, exceeded constitutional authority. The state filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the enforcement operations.

That’s the normal mechanism for redressing concerns about federal overreach: litigation, political advocacy, criticism. But if federal prosecutors can investigate and charge the officials who raise those concerns, the balance of power distorts.

Federal officials conducting immigration operations would simultaneously have power to investigate their critics. The incentive structure becomes perverse: Rather than internally reflect on whether operations are consistent with constitutional requirements and agency policies, federal officials can simply investigate the people pointing out the problems.

The Justice Department has its own rules that are supposed to limit this. The Justice Manual tells prosecutors to consider whether prosecution is in the interest of justice. A prosecution based on turning political speech into federal crimes would seem to raise concerns under these guidelines. Yet the investigation proceeded anyway.

How Other Democracies Handle This

Most democracies don’t let federal prosecutors investigate state officials just because they criticized federal policies, even when such criticism precedes protest activity that interferes with operations.

In Canada, provincial governments frequently oppose federal priorities within their provinces. When provincial officials criticize RCMP decisions or announce policies conflicting with federal priorities, Canadian federal prosecutors don’t routinely open investigations. Canada’s constitution protects freedom of speech, and courts use that to protect political speech by elected officials criticizing federal policy. Canadian law permits charges for interference with law enforcement—destroying evidence, threatening officers. But the mere fact that political criticism precedes citizen protest activity wouldn’t typically trigger federal prosecution of the officials who made the statements.

Germany and other European democracies follow similar principles. State governments often conflict with federal priorities and engage in debate about federal decisions. After World War II, democracies learned that prosecutors shouldn’t have unlimited power and political speech criticizing government action should receive heightened protection to prevent authoritarian misuse of law. These countries do prosecute officials for blocking law enforcement, but usually only when there’s direct interference: an official who directly orders police to stop, destroys evidence, or threatens officers. Not someone who made political statements that inspired citizens to organize protests.

Compared to other democracies, this DOJ investigation is unusual.

What the Investigation Tests

The investigation into Walz and Frey raises a question American law hasn’t clearly answered: whether political speech that criticizes federal policy and inspires citizens to organize protests can be converted into federal liability for the officials who made the statements.

Prosecutors would face serious legal obstacles. They’d need to prove the two officials made a specific deal together. They’d need to prove that political rhetoric constitutes “intimidation” or “threat,” raising substantial First Amendment concerns. They’d need to establish causation through a complex chain of events and human choices. And they’d need to demonstrate specific intent to prevent law enforcement from performing duties. Former federal prosecutors from both sides of the political spectrum say the investigation is legally weak and troubling.

But even if the case ultimately fails, the investigation itself carries weight. Other mayors and governors who have made similar statements now face the prospect of federal investigation. If the DOJ successfully prosecutes officials for criticizing federal operations as obstruction, state and local leaders would face pressure to either remain silent or carefully craft statements to avoid language prosecutors might characterize as “intimidation.” This would limit what local leaders can say when advocating their constituents’ interests in national policy debates.

The investigation represents a significant expansion of how obstruction is defined if it results in prosecution and conviction. The expansion would let prosecutors punish political speech because it led to protests by other people.

Whether through eventual prosecution, dismissal, court challenge, or settlement, the outcome will likely establish precedent that shapes how federal prosecutors and state officials interact for years. If the investigation is abandoned or charges are dismissed, it would suggest courts and the legal profession have affirmed constraints on prosecutorial power to punish political opposition. If charges are pursued and result in conviction, it would signal a significant shift in the boundaries of acceptable political speech by elected officials. Either way, we’re watching prosecutors test whether they can turn criticism of government into a crime. The answer to that question matters more than what happens to two officials in Minnesota. It determines whether the First Amendment still means what it says.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.