>> ERIC: WELCOME TO "ALMANAC."

COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR, A LOOK AT ST.

PAUL'S CITY BUDGET WOES, A SNEAK PEEK AT A NEW TWIN CITIES PBS INITIATIVE FOCUSED ON AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY.

AND A TRIO OF POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS BREAKS DOWN ACTION AND INACTION IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

>> CATHY: WE START TONIGHT WITH THE WEEK'S BIG LEGAL NEWS.

MINNESOTA'S CHIEF FEDERAL COURT JUDGE PATRICK SCHILTZ BLOCKED A HALF DOZEN SUBPOENAS AGAINST GOVERNOR WALZ, THE MAYORS OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ST.

PAUL, AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THEIR ACTIONS DURING OPERATION METRO SURGE.

IN HIS 29-PAGE OPINION, JUDGE SCHILTZ CHARACTERIZED THE SUBPOENAS AS "ABUSE OF THE GRAND JURY" PROCESS.

JANE KIRTLEY IS A U OF M PROFESSOR EMERITA, RECENTLY RETIRED FROM LEADING THE SILHA CENTER.

SHANNON PRINCE IS AN ATTORNEY BASED IN HOUSTON AND A NATIONAL EXPERT ON USE OF FORCE.

THANKS TO YOU BOTH.

SHANNON, I AM GOING TO START WITH YOU.

JUDGE SCHILTZ IS AN INTERESTING INDIVIDUAL.

HE'S A BUSH APPOINTEE.

HE'S A JUDGE WITH DECENT CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS.

GIVE US A SENSE OF HOW UNUSUAL SUCH A POINTED OPINION IS.

>> WELL, IN A TIME IN WHICH WE'VE SEEN INCREASED POLITE SIZATION, THE STORY OF THE MINNESOTA SUBPOENAS IS AT ITS CORE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN POLITICAL ACTORS TRY TO WEAPONIZE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, BUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFUSES TO BE WEAPONIZED.

SO ESSENTIALLY THESE SUBPOENAS DEMANDED THAT MINNESOTA'S GOVERNOR AND OTHER ELECTED EFFICIENTS TURN OVER RECORDS ABOUT HOW THE STATE AND CITY HANDLED ITS FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

BUT THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THIS WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE VEG TREASM EFFORT.

IT WAS ERELY RETALIATION BECAUSE THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAD LAWFULLY LIMITED THEIR -- WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OPERATIONS.

AND THE CONTEXT MAKES THIS MOTIVE EVEN CLEARER.

MINNESOTA AND MINNEAPOLIS HAD SUE ED IN FEDERAL COURT TO BLOCK THE SURGE.

THE PRESIDENT RONLTSED RHETT RETRIBUTION, AND THEN THIS JUDGE, WHO IS CONSERVATIVE LIKE THE PRESIDENT -- WAS PROMISED AND THERE WILL THE SUBPOENAS DESERVED TO BE QUASHED.

AND I THINK WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THIS JUDGE IS WILLING TO TAKE A STAND AND SAY THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF LEFT VERSUS RIGHT OR CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL BUT THE RULE OF LAW AND THE WEAPONZATION OF THE RULE LAW.

>> Eric: ARE THEE SUBPOENA RECIPIENTS IN THE CLEAR NOW?

>> WELL, OW THAT THE SUBPOENAS HAVE BEEN QUASHED, NOT ONLY ARE THEY SAFE FROM HAVING TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT NOW WE EE GOVERNOR WALZ BEING INSPIRED TO BRING HIS OWN F.O.I.A.

REQUEST AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SINCE A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS NOW CONCLUDED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RETALIATING RETALG AGAINST THE STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, THAT GOVERNOR WALZ WANTS TO SEE WHAT IS THE CAN DEPTH AND THE BREADTH OF THIS RETALIATION AND HAS A F.O.I.A.

REQUEST AGAINST A RANGE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES TO SEE WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RETRIBUTION, WHICH AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED, WHAT ACTIONS DO THEY TAKE AND ACTS OF INSURVIVOR REGULATION.

>> Eric: WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST HERE?

IS IT SOMETHING THAT COULD BEAR A LOT OF FRUIT OR IS IT A FISHING EXPEDITION?

>> I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SAY IT'S A FISHING EXPEDITION.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

IT IS QUITE BROAD.

IT USES A LOT OF KEYWORDS, WHICH THE QUESTION, ARE THEY IN RECORDS AND COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW?

AND IT DOESN'T MOVE QUICKLY.

EVEN IF THEY WERE TO RESPOND IN GOOD FAITH, IT COULD TAKE MONTHS O GET ANY KIND OF A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE.

>> Cathy: HOW UNUSUAL IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO OCCUR WHEN AN ELECTED EFFICIENT, A PUBLIC OFFICIAL ASKS THE GOVERNMENT FOR CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN A SENSE?

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S UNUSUAL.

THESE AREN'T CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

THEY ARE AT WORST I WOULD SAY INVESTIGATORY RECORDS.

BUT THEY COULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT EXEMPTION.

THIS SHOWS US THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN SO UNUSUAL IN ITS WEAPONZATION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT UNUSUAL RESPONSES ARE NECESSARY.

SO IT'S UNUSUAL FOR A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TO FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, BUT OF COURSE GOVERNOR WALZ CAN DO SO.

>> Eric: SHANNON, 15 ANTI--I.C.E.

PROTESTORS WERE ARRESTED AND INDICTED ON CONSPIRACY CHARGES.

I WONDER HOW THIS IS BEING HANDLED IN OTHER STATES.

IS THIS HAPPENING IN ALL.

I.C.E.

VISITED STATES?

>> WELL, WE ARE SEEING A PATTERN OF THESE PROSECUTIONS BEING BROAD ACROSS STATES BUT WHAT WE'RE ALSO SEEING IS A PATTERN OF THESE PROSECUTIONS BEING DISMISSED, DOWN GRADED FOR EXAMPLE FROM FELONIES TO MISDEMEANORS OR ENDING IN ACQUITTALS BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY NOT SUPPORTING THE CHARGES.

ONE JUDGE EVEN CALLED A RECENT INDICTING DOCUMENT THAT -- AGAINST AN ANTI--I.C.E.

PROTESTOR PERPLEXING.

NOW, WHAT CONCERNS ME IN MINNESOTA IS THAT THE U.S.

ATTORNEY HAS SAID THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE CASES ARE GETTING DISMISSED.

ESSENTIALLY THAT SHE'S BRINGING THE CASES ND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

BUT HEALTHICALLY PROSECUTORS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BRING CASES THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THEY CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

OTHERWISE, THE PROCESS ITSELF BECOMES THE PUNISHMENT.

>> Cathy: SAY, I'M WONDERING, PROFESSOR, ITH THE FLURRY OF LEGAL ACTION AROUND ALL OF THIS, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT HOW THE GENERAL PUBLIC VIEWS GOVERNMENT?

AND, YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

AS WE COVER IT IN THE NEWS MEDIA?

>> WELL, WE KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A LACK OF FAITH IN HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATES.

THIS IS JUST, I THINK, CONTRIBUTING TO THIS.

WE HAVE HE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BRINGING CRAZY KINDS OF ACTIONS, UNPRECEDENTED KIND OF ACTIONS, LABELING PEOPLE AS DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, GETTING THROWN OUT BY THE COURTS.

AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH THIS GREAT DIVIDE WHICH SAYS ON THE ONE HAND, OH, PEOPLE ARE GETTING OFF ON A TECHNICALITY, VERSUS THIS IS RETRIBUTION, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW.

IT REALLY UNDERMINES I THINK THE PUBLIC FAITH IN THE SYSTEM, AND AS A LAWYER, I'M REALLY DISMAYED BY IT, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH WHAT SHANNON SAID.

WE ASSUME THAT OUR PROSECUTORS ARE GOING TO PROCEED IN GOOD FAITH, AND THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

>> Eric: SHANNON, ANY IDEA ABOUT NEXT STEPS LEGALLY HERE?

>> WELL, NEXT STEP IS THE ARRAIGNMENT.

THAT MEANS THAT EACH PERSON WILL BE FORMALLY ADVISED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM AND THEY WERE ENTER THEIR PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.

BUT WHETHER THIS INDICTMENT WILL SURVIVE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.

FEDERAL INDICTMENTS ARE RARELY DISMISSED OUTRIGHT, BUT AN UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER OF THESE PROTEST RELATED CASES HAVE BEEN TOSSED FOR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

THAT HISTORY MATTERS.

IT SHOWS THAT COURTS INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE COURTS ARE WARY OF CRIMINALIZING POLITICAL EXPRESSION.

AND THIS INDICTMENT WITH ITS MIX OF LEGAL AND NON-LEGAL BEHAVIOR IS LIKELY TO FACE THAT SAME SCRUTINY.

>> Cathy: ALL RIGHT, JANE KIRTLEY, AND PRINCE KIRTLEY, AND PRIN SHAN