Have any Minnesota judges been charged or arrested in federal investigations since 2024?

1. No published federal charges or arrests of Minnesota judges since 2024

Multiple national news reports assembled for this review show that federal prosecutors discussed — and in at least one episode formally considered — bringing criminal charges related to immigration-court conduct, but Reuters explicitly reported in July 2025 that “to date, no judge or lawyer in Minnesota has been charged over the episode,” which is the clearest contemporaneous statement negating any known federal charges or arrests of judges in that probe ^[1]. Separate Reuters reporting and related coverage of grand jury subpoenas and DOJ probes of Minnesota officials mention investigations of elected officials such as Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey but do not report indictments or arrests of judges ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Context: high-profile federal investigations in Minnesota but different targets

The record gathered here shows significant federal activity in Minnesota across two broad themes — large-scale fraud investigations tied to state-administered programs (the Feeding Our Future and related Medicaid/provider probes) and criminal investigations tied to the federal immigration surge and alleged obstruction or interference with ICE operations — but the named defendants in the fraud cases are program operators and service providers, not judges, while the immigration-related inquiries have focused on political leaders and defense attorneys rather than judicial officers ^{[4] [5] [6] [1] [2]}.

3. What prosecutors considered vs. what they charged: the Reuters account

Reuters’ exclusive reporting is central to understanding the gap between internal deliberations and formal charges: it documented that Justice Department officials explored whether to bring criminal charges against judges and defense attorneys who organized or encouraged virtual hearings designed to limit in-person arrests by immigration agents, but it emphasized that those were considerations and reiterated that “to date, no judge or lawyer in Minnesota has been charged over the episode” ^[1]. That distinction — internal consideration versus public indictment — is critical and is the basis for concluding that no judges have been federally charged or arrested in the matters the sources describe ^[1].

4. Corroborating coverage and limits of available reporting

Other outlets covering related developments — including Reuters pieces on grand-jury subpoenas and DOJ probes of state officials ^{[3] [2]}, and reporting on judges’ courtroom pushback to ICE tactics ^{[7] [8] [9]} — document active friction between federal agents and Minnesota courts but do not identify any judge being arrested or indicted on federal criminal charges since 2024. The available sources do not comprehensively prove the nonexistence of any sealed or as-yet-unreported federal actions against judges, but among the materials provided there are no factual assertions, filings, or news reports that confirm any such charges or arrests ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in the reporting

Reporting reveals competing narratives: federal law-enforcement sources and some Justice Department actors framed probes as necessary enforcement or as legitimate reactions to perceived obstruction ^{[1] [2]}, while state officials and many local leaders have characterized the investigations as political pressure or “weaponization” of the justice system ^{[2] [3]}. Reuters’ emphasis that charges were considered but not brought may reflect cautious sourcing inside the DOJ and FBI; conversely, state and local criticism of federal tactics highlights an implicit politics that shapes both investigations and coverage ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line for the record assembled here

Based on the reporting assembled, there is no evidence in the provided sources that any Minnesota judge has been charged or arrested in a federal investigation since 2024; federal authorities considered criminal theories involving judges in at least one immigration-related inquiry, but that consideration did not become public charges or arrests as of the dates of those reports ^{[1] [2]}. If new, corroborated information exists beyond these sources — for example, court filings, DOJ press releases, or credible investigative reports published after the cited articles — it is not reflected in the material reviewed here.