A federal judge has tossed out the Trump administration’s challenge to Minnesota’s sanctuary laws, ruling that the state has the right to make decisions about how to use its resources, including the ability to decline to help the feds on illegal immigration. U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, ruled that neither state law nor local policies challenged by the Justice Department are preempted by federal law. The decision has immediate implications for immigration enforcement operations nationwide.
What changed
Judge Tostrud ruled that neither state law nor local policies are preempted by federal law, and stated that the Minnesota policies generally govern the actions of state and local authorities, not federal officers. He said the policies “do not command the federal government or its contractors to act. They do not forbid the federal government or its contractors from acting.”
The judge specifically ruled that deportation “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—requests that local authorities hold a deportation target for pickup—are not mandatory, and cannot be imposed on unwilling law enforcement departments. Minnesota has restrictions on honoring detainers, and state Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an opinion saying those restrictions are consistent with Minnesota’s constitution.
The DOJ filed the lawsuit against Minnesota last September, months before President Trump ordered an immigration enforcement surge in the Minneapolis area.
Why it matters
This ruling affirms that states retain constitutional authority to limit their own law enforcement agencies’ involvement in federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has now seen challenges to sanctuary policies tossed across the country, from Los Angeles to Boston.
For practitioners advising clients in Minnesota and similar jurisdictions, this decision reinforces that:
- Local law enforcement agencies cannot be compelled to honor ICE detainer requests
- State laws restricting data sharing with federal immigration authorities survive federal constitutional challenge
- The state’s police powers to govern its own agencies remain intact even where federal immigration enforcement is implicated
The ruling is particularly significant because it comes from a Trump-appointed judge, suggesting the legal precedent may withstand appellate scrutiny and is based on long-settled federalism principles rather than partisan concerns.
Way forward
- Verify the scope of state/local protections. Review current Minnesota state law and local ordinances in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County to confirm which information-sharing and detainer restrictions remain in effect.
- Update client advisories. If you represent immigrants in Minnesota, incorporate this ruling into your standard advice about detainers and data-sharing risks.
- Monitor appellate activity. The DOJ may pursue an appeal. Consult the U.S. District Court for Minnesota’s docket regularly for any notice of appeal.
- Flag preemption arguments in other contexts. If you practice in a sanctuary state or locality facing similar DOJ challenges, this ruling provides persuasive precedent for federalism-based defenses.
Disclaimer
This article explains a court decision and does not constitute legal advice. Every case and jurisdiction has unique facts and legal requirements. Immigration law changes frequently, and federal agencies may challenge or appeal unfavorable rulings. You should verify the current status of all applicable state, local, and federal law by consulting the primary source document linked above and speaking with a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before relying on any information in this article for client advice or litigation strategy.