1 hour ago
1
ARTICLE AD BOX
A Trump-appointed judge dealt the Trump administration a major setback Monday, tossing out its lawsuit against Minnesota's sanctuary immigration policies and ruling the state cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement.
The battle centered on whether the Trump administration can use the Supremacy Clause to knock down Minnesota's sanctuary laws, which include policies that bar local officials from holding immigrants solely on ICE detainers, restrict participation in federal immigration enforcement and limit the sharing of driver's license and immigration-related data with ICE.
The Justice Department argued Minnesota's restrictions illegally hinder ICE, but Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud rejected that argument, ruling states have the constitutional authority to decide how their own officials participate in immigration enforcement.
In a 56-page opinion, Tostrud dismissed every claim brought by the Justice Department against Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Hennepin County, concluding the challenged laws regulate only state and local officials, not the federal government.
DOJ ESCALATES BLUE-STATE ICE STANDOFF AFTER STATES REFUSE KEY FEDERAL REQUEST
"They do not command the federal government or its contractors to act. They do not forbid the federal government or its contractors from acting. They do not control how the federal government or its contractors undertake their work," Tostrud wrote. "Rather, they regulate how state and local officials perform their duties."
The ruling marks a significant setback for the administration's broader effort to block sanctuary policies across the country by arguing they unlawfully interfere with federal immigration enforcement.
But Eric Wessan, an attorney in the Iowa Solicitor General's Office, said he believed Tostrud's ruling conflicts with an earlier Eighth Circuit decision that he says gives the federal government stronger grounds to challenge state laws that interfere with federal immigration enforcement.
"States across the country have passed laws making state immigration crimes. The Eighth Circuit (which includes Minnesota) found one of those laws obstructed federal immigration enforcement, and so it was preempted," Wessan told Fox News Digital. "Judge Tostrud cited that opinion to explain that preemption is narrow. I think that his opinion is hard to square with the binding precedent."
The Justice Department argued Minnesota's laws and local ordinances conflict with federal immigration statutes by restricting local officers from honoring ICE detainers, limiting information sharing with federal authorities and preventing local officials from participating in immigration enforcement.
But Tostrud concluded that accepting the administration's claim would create a constitutional problem under the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine.
The judge emphasized that while Congress possesses broad authority over immigration, it cannot compel states to use their own personnel and resources to carry out federal regulatory programs.
"The framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States," the opinion states, adding that the federal government "may not command the States' officers...to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."
NEW YORK SHERIFFS 'MAD AS HELL' AS HOCHUL PUSHES TO BAN KEY LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP
Wessan agreed that states generally cannot be required to assist the federal government but argued the harder legal question is whether states can prohibit voluntary cooperation.
"States are not required to help the federal government enforce federal immigration law," he said. "Whether States can ban cooperation when certain actors (states or municipalities want to) is a harder question, and probably depends on the specific state and state laws."
Tostrud also rejected one of the administration's central arguments — that Minnesota's refusal to cooperate with ICE amounts to obstruction of federal immigration enforcement.
"Trefusing to help is not the same as impeding," Tostrud wrote.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Wessan argued the debate over that distinction distracts from the larger immigration crisis.
"The country is facing an immigration crisis," he said. "Rather than figuring out the fine line between impeding and refusing to help, Minnesota should appreciate the federal government's willingness to help with the illegal immigration crisis—and the waste, fraud, and abuse that accompanies it."
Minnesota leaders have defended the state's sanctuary-style policies, arguing they encourage immigrants in the country illegally to cooperate with local law enforcement by assuring them that reporting crimes or serving as witnesses will not automatically expose them to immigration enforcement.
The legal dispute also follows months of heightened immigration enforcement in Minnesota, where the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale ICE initiative that drew national attention, sparked protests and significantly increased the federal law enforcement presence across the state.
The operation intensified after two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were shot and killed by federal agents just weeks apart in January. Their deaths heightened scrutiny of Minnesota's immigration policies and prompted President Donald Trump to remove then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from overseeing the operation, with border czar Tom Homan taking over the effort.
After taking over, Homan repeatedly argued that large-scale ICE operations would become less necessary if state and local officials cooperated with federal immigration authorities. Homan said that his "main focus now is drawdown," but stressed that reducing the federal presence would require greater cooperation from Minnesota officials.
"Cooperation with local authorities, especially jails and prisons, will give federal agents better access to people in the United States illegally. This would then lead to fewer federal law enforcement [agents] on Minnesota streets," Homan said.
Monday's ruling comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue similar lawsuits challenging sanctuary policies in several other states.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the Justice Department for comment.
English (US) ·