Judge tosses feds’ suit over Minnesota ‘sanctuary city’ policies

MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration challenging Minnesota’s state and local “sanctuary” laws, policies and ordinances.

In the 56-page order, Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud said forcing state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes a balance of power between federal government and individual states.

Though the Trump administration argued state law was preempted by a federal statute allowing local officials to enforce immigration laws under formal agreements, Tostrud rejected that claim.

“This statute does not require a state or any of its political subdivisions to enter into this type of agreement; these agreements are voluntary,” Tostrud wrote, also ruling immigration detainers are requests, not mandates. “At the same time, the statute does not forbid a state or any of its political subdivisions from voluntarily cooperating with the United States.”

The challenged policies include state statutes limiting access to driver’s license and vehicle registration data for immigration enforcement, as well as local ordinances barring state officers from enforcing federal immigration law.

In a measured ruling — especially when compared to recent orders from some of his colleagues — the Donald Trump appointee said the challenged laws and ordinances do not discriminate against the federal government, and are entirely within the state’s right.

“The preemption claims fail for several reasons, but primarily because, as the United States construes its assertedly preemptive laws, they violate the anti-commandeering doctrine,” he wrote.

The government argued the supremacy clause of the Constitution preempts state and local laws that create obstacles for federal agents, and that Minnesota’s laws discriminate against the federal government by subjecting its officers to special restrictions not imposed on other law enforcement agencies.

While noting doctrines exist prohibiting that form of discrimination, Tostrud found Minnesota’s driver’s license data-sharing limits — along with other Twin Cities’ ordinances — do not single out federal agencies, and instead regulate local operations altogether.

“The challenged laws and policies do not discriminate against the United States in the sense the intergovernmental immunity doctrine requires,” he wrote.

The federal government filed its initial complaint in September 2025 against the state, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul — arguing policies prohibiting local authorities from enforcing federal immigration law are unconstitutional.

The suit is in line with Trump’s executive orders and proclamations declaring a national emergency at the southern border and targeting state and local politicians that the administration said “insist on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement” in its complaint.

In August 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota identifying the state as a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” and demanded the repeal of practices that “thwart federal immigration enforcement.”

Outgoing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz rejected Bondi’s characterization of his state’s policies, calling the federal actions a “misguided political agenda” fundamentally inconsistent with the nation’s founding principles.

Tostrud’s ruling is not the first instance of federal courts blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to punish “sanctuary” cities. In April 2025, a federal judge rejected the president’s attempts to withhold federal funding from cities refusing to support immigration enforcement.

Following the president’s executive orders, the Justice Department launched dozens of lawsuits in early 2025 targeting over 20 sanctuary states and municipalities across the country in Trump’s second term.

State and local officials — often joined by civil rights organizations — have fought back hard on Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering grounds, arguing the Constitution reserves local public safety decisions to the states.

Federal judges previously dismissed sanctuary claims against Illinois and the city of Los Angeles, and the government has increasingly shifted to on-the-ground deployments of federal agents in response to non-cooperation from states.

The Justice Department and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.