Chief U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud issued a 56‑page decision that dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against Minnesota and several of its local governments over sanctuary‑related policies.
The case, United States v. State of Minnesota et al., challenged the state’s constitutional interpretation, statutes restricting information sharing with federal immigration authorities, and local ordinances that limit police assistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Parties named included the State of Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison, the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Hennepin County, and Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt.
The Department of Justice argued that state and local actions unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. Specific claims targeted the Attorney General’s interpretation of the state constitution, statutes limiting data sharing, ordinances prohibiting police cooperation, and the sheriff’s refusal to hold individuals on ICE detainers.
Judge Tostrud granted motions to dismiss all claims. Dismissals covered jurisdictional and substantive allegations against the state, the attorney general, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Hennepin County, and the sheriff, with several claims dismissed with prejudice and others without prejudice.
In his opinion, the judge held that while the federal government has broad authority over immigration, it cannot compel states or local governments to use their personnel or resources for enforcement. The ruling found that the Department of Justice’s preemption arguments failed under the Tenth Amendment’s anti‑commandeering doctrine, and that Minnesota’s policies did not violate intergovernmental immunity.
The decision does not prohibit federal immigration authorities from enforcing laws themselves. Rather, it clarifies that Minnesota and its local entities cannot be forced to assist in those efforts through the challenged policies.
Consequently, the ruling affirms the autonomy of state and local governments in determining their participation in federal immigration enforcement while preserving the federal government’s ability to enforce its own statutes.
