By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-07-21 09:52:10 | Updated at 2026-07-21 16:20:20
6 hours ago
A federal judge on July 20 threw out the Trump administration’s challenge to a series of so-called sanctuary laws and policies in Minnesota that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The decision leaves in place sanctuary-style laws and policies in Minnesota.
The lawsuit is one of dozens the federal government has brought all over the country during the second Trump administration against sanctuary jurisdictions in hopes of bolstering enforcement of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sanctuary jurisdictions have been largely successful in fending off such lawsuits, but the Trump administration has won some rulings in limited contexts, including those in which courts have allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations to continue.
Judge Eric Tostrud issued the 56-page opinion and order in United States v. State of Minnesota. He found that requiring the state and localities to enforce federal immigration laws would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which creates a balance of power between the states and the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the defendants—Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt—in their official capacities.
The lawsuit challenged various state and local laws, policies, and practices that prevent or discourage immigration enforcement cooperation, the judge recounted in the opinion.
Some Minnesota laws restrict the sharing of information that various governments may hold about noncitizens in their jurisdictions. Others prohibit officials from honoring ICE immigration detainers and forbid local law enforcement officers from participating in immigration enforcement. A detainer is not a criminal arrest warrant but is a formal request in which ICE directs a state or local law enforcement agency to keep someone in custody for an additional period so ICE can take the individual into custody for possible deportation proceedings.
The federal government argued that these Minnesota laws and policies violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which provides that federal laws prevail over conflicting state laws, the opinion said.
The DOJ said that these laws and policies are preempted, or overridden by federal law, and that they burden the federal government, which is a violation of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. That constitutional doctrine prevents states and their subdivisions from imposing burdens on the federal government or its operations. The department sought a declaration that the laws and policies were unconstitutional and an injunction forbidding the defendants from enforcing them.
The defendants argued the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under federal court rules, meaning the court wouldn’t have authority to hear the case, according to the opinion.
Minneapolis filed a brief accusing the federal government of “illegally attempting to press gang sovereign states and municipalities.”
The city should be allowed to enforce its policy decision “that it would harm public safety and would be an improvident use of finite city resources to have any Minneapolis employees participate in, or for Minneapolis to operate its municipal programs for the purpose of, enforcing federal immigration laws,” the brief said.
Tostrud dismissed the DOJ’s suit on several grounds, among them that the department had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, meaning even if everything the DOJ alleged in its complaint were true, the complaint still did not amount to a valid legal claim.
The judge held that the DOJ’s interpretation of applicable federal statutes and regulations would violate the 10th Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine, a cornerstone of federalism that forbids the federal government from forcing states and localities to enforce federal law or use their resources for federal purposes. The idea behind the doctrine is that while the federal government may regulate individuals and private entities under its enumerated powers spelled out in the Constitution, it cannot compel states to expend their own resources for federal law enforcement.
“Congress cannot legislate to transform state governments or their political subdivisions into ‘regional offices or administrative agencies of the Federal Government,’” the judge said, citing a prior ruling.
Tostrud also found that the DOJ’s intergovernmental immunity claims fail because the laws and policies being challenged do not discriminate against the federal government.
It is unclear whether the DOJ will appeal the new ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment both to Ellison and the DOJ. No replies were received by publication time.
