Judge Dismisses Minnesota Sanctuary Policy Lawsuit

What Happened

On July 20, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit challenging immigration-related policies in Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County.

The Justice Department argued that the policies interfered with federal immigration enforcement and unlawfully treated federal immigration agencies differently from other government bodies. The defendants answered that they were not blocking federal officers from enforcing federal law. They were choosing how state and local employees would use their own authority, information, detention space, and budgets.

Tostrud, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Donald Trump during his first term, concluded that the challenged measures regulate state and local officials rather than federal officers. The ruling leaves the policies in place unless the Justice Department successfully appeals or the governments change them.

Background

The term sanctuary jurisdiction has no single definition in federal law. It usually refers to a state or local government that limits some forms of cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. These policies vary widely. Some limit the sharing of certain records. Others decline requests to keep a person jailed after the person would otherwise be released. A jurisdiction may still cooperate with federal authorities on criminal investigations or when a court issues a warrant.

Immigration law is mainly a federal responsibility. However, the federal government often depends on voluntary help from state and local agencies. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement can ask a jail to hold a person for up to 48 additional hours through an immigration detainer. Congressional Research Service explains that these detainers are requests, not compulsory commands.

The Constitution creates a related limit called the anticommandeering doctrine. Under this principle, the federal government generally cannot order states to administer or enforce a federal program. At the same time, the Supremacy Clause allows valid federal law to override conflicting state law. Sanctuary-policy cases often turn on the boundary between those two principles.

What Policies Did the Justice Department Challenge?

The Justice Department filed the case on September 29, 2025. Its complaint challenged several different measures rather than one statewide sanctuary law.

Minnesota restricts the use and sharing of some driver’s license and identification-card information for civil immigration enforcement.
Minneapolis and St. Paul limit when city employees and police may investigate immigration status or assist with civil immigration enforcement.
Hennepin County does not keep a person in jail solely because ICE issued an administrative detainer.
A Minnesota attorney general advisory opinion concluded that state and local officers generally lack authority to extend someone’s detention solely on the basis of a civil immigration detainer.

The federal complaint said these policies impede immigration enforcement, restrict information that federal officers need, and can result in the release of people whom ICE wants to arrest. It asked the court to declare the policies invalid and stop officials from enforcing them.

What the Court Decided

According to the 56-page order, the challenged policies do not direct federal officers, stop them from acting, or control how they perform their duties. Instead, they govern the conduct of state and local employees. Tostrud therefore rejected the Justice Department’s central preemption argument.

The court also relied on the anticommandeering principle. Requiring Minnesota and its local governments to provide personnel, detention space, information, or other resources for federal civil immigration enforcement could shift federal enforcement costs to state and local budgets.

The Justice Department separately argued that some Minnesota rules discriminate against the federal government. Tostrud rejected that theory as well, finding that relevant restrictions were not limited only to federal agencies and also reached private companies or other government entities.

The ruling does not prevent ICE or other federal agencies from enforcing federal immigration law in Minnesota. It decides whether the federal government can invalidate the specific state and local limits challenged in this lawsuit.

What Different Sides Are Saying

The Justice Department’s position

The Justice Department said Minnesota’s policies obstruct lawful federal enforcement and create public-safety risks. Its complaint cited cases in which people with criminal convictions were released from local custody despite immigration detainers. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said jurisdictions should not be allowed to shield people who may be removed under federal law.

Fact check: Local noncooperation can make ICE arrests less convenient and may require federal officers to locate someone after release. However, an ICE detainer is generally a request rather than a judicial warrant or mandatory order. The ruling does not require local governments to interfere with federal arrests. It allows them to decline certain forms of assistance.

The federal government also argued that immigration is a national responsibility and that state or local rules cannot stand as obstacles to federal law.

Fact check: Federal law does control immigration. But federal supremacy does not automatically require state employees to carry out federal policy. Courts must determine whether a state measure actually conflicts with federal law or simply withholds voluntary assistance.

Minnesota and local governments’ position

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said the ruling protects the longstanding constitutional rule that Washington cannot commandeer state resources. State and local lawyers argued that their policies can improve trust between immigrant communities and police because witnesses and victims may be less afraid to report crimes.

Fact check: The anticommandeering doctrine is an established constitutional principle. Claims about community trust are supported by some research and law-enforcement testimony, but the size of the effect varies by place and is difficult to isolate from other factors.

Supporters of the policies also say that holding someone beyond an authorized release time based only on an administrative request can create constitutional and financial liability for a local jail.

Fact check: Federal courts have held in several cases that local detention based only on an ICE detainer can raise Fourth Amendment concerns. The exact legal risk depends on the facts, the detainer, and the jurisdiction.

Fact Check

Claim: The ruling makes Minnesota a place where federal immigration law does not apply. False. Federal agencies may continue enforcing federal immigration law in Minnesota.
Claim: Minnesota has one statewide law protecting every person from deportation. False. The lawsuit challenged a group of state statutes, city ordinances, a county directive, and an attorney general opinion.
Claim: Every immigration detainer requires a jail to keep someone locked up. False. Detainers are generally requests for temporary continued custody, not court-issued warrants.
Claim: The judge ruled that all sanctuary policies are constitutional. False. The decision concerns the particular policies and legal claims in this case.
Claim: The case is necessarily over. False. The Justice Department may appeal the dismissal.

What Happens Next?

The Justice Department can ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to review the dismissal. It may also continue bringing or appealing similar cases involving other states and cities.

The broader political dispute is likely to continue even if this ruling stands. Congress could debate clearer rules for information sharing, immigration detainers, federal grants, or voluntary state partnerships. Any new federal law would still be tested against constitutional limits on federal power over states.

Discussion Questions

Have immigration policies affected trust in your community?
Which part of the ruling seems most important?
Should local police assist with civil immigration enforcement?
When does noncooperation become obstruction?
Who should pay for immigration enforcement?
How should courts balance federal supremacy and state autonomy?
Which fact-check most changed your understanding?
Should ICE detainers require judicial approval?
Why do sanctuary policies remain politically divisive?
If you managed a county jail, what detainer policy would you adopt?

Judge Dismisses DOJ Challenge to Minnesota Sanctuary Policies