Summary (tl;dr)

A federal judge in Minnesota has dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging state and local "sanctuary" policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, affirming states' rights under the Tenth Amendment.

Essential Background

The lawsuit, initiated by the Justice Department during the Trump administration, targeted Minnesota's laws and local ordinances, including policies that restrict sharing driver's license data for immigration enforcement and prohibit local authorities from detaining individuals solely based on immigration holds. These challenges were part of a broader federal effort to compel "sanctuary" jurisdictions nationwide to cooperate with federal immigration agencies, including an "Operation Metro Surge" in the Twin Cities which led to numerous arrests and claims of racial profiling. In a separate but related prior ruling in March 2026, Judge Eric Tostrud also found that ICE agents likely engaged in unconstitutional race-based stops and warrantless arrests in Minnesota but declined an injunction at that time due to reduced federal operations.

The Full Story

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud dismissed the Justice Department's case against the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County officials. Judge Tostrud ruled that compelling 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 the federal government and individual states. He also clarified that requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain individuals for deportation are voluntary, not mandatory, for local law enforcement.

Why It Matters

This ruling is a significant victory for states' rights and for local governments and immigrant-rights advocates in Minnesota. Proponents of these local policies argue that limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is crucial for fostering trust between immigrant communities and local police, which is essential for effective policing and public safety. Critics of federal mandates suggest that forcing local departments to act as immigration agents could deter residents, including undocumented individuals, from reporting crimes or cooperating with local law enforcement. The decision reinforces the principle that states have the right to determine how their resources are used without being forced to enforce federal immigration laws.

Geographic Location

• Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, United States (city whose policies were challenged and location of U.S. District Court ruling)
• St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, United States (city whose policies were challenged)
• State of Minnesota, United States (state whose laws and policies were challenged)