Federal judge rules in favor of the John Doe targets who went on the offensive in federal court.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Here's the opinion (PDF). The defendants made various abstention and immunity arguments, most notably contending that the federal court shouldn't interfere with an ongoing state proceeding. But the U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa said that at the investigatory stage, there's no state judicial proceeding that can be deferred to under the Younger abstention doctrine:

Wisconsin's John Doe procedure is an investigatory device, similar to a grand jury proceeding, but lacking the oversight of a jury. It is “not so much a procedure for the determination of probable cause as it is an inquest for the discovery of crime in which the judge has significant powers.” State v. Washington, 266 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Wis. 1978). “By invoking the formal John Doe investigative proceeding, law enforcement officers are able to obtain the benefit of powers not otherwise available to them, i.e., the power to subpoena witnesses, to take testimony under oath, and to compel the testimony of a reluctant witness.” Id. The judge's responsibility is to “ensure procedural fairness. The John Doe judge should act with a view toward issuing a complaint or determining that no crime has occurred.” Id. at 605. So understood, the John Doe proceeding does not fit into any of the categories for Younger abstention. It is an investigatory process, not an ongoing criminal prosecution or civil enforcement proceeding. Nor is it a proceeding – like a civil contempt order, Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336 n.12 (1977), or the requirement to post a bond pending appeal, Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13 (1987) – that implicates a State‟s interest in “enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, . . .” Sprint at 588. The John Doe is a criminal investigation, but it is not “akin to a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 592. Younger is inapplicable until a criminal proceeding is actually commenced....

Further... the John Doe proceeding does not offer O'Keefe the opportunity to adjudicate the federal constitutional issues that are raised in this lawsuit....

Finally, Younger abstention does not apply when the plaintiff alleges “specific facts” that the state proceeding was “brought in bad faith for the purpose of retaliating for or deterring the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.” Collins v. Kendall Cnty., Ill., 807 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1986). O'Keefe's complaint easily satisfies this standard, precisely alleging that the defendants have used the John Doe proceeding as a pretext to target conservative groups across the state...