Blab News
Judge Dismisses Trump-Era Lawsuits Against Minnesotas Twin Cities and State Over Sanctuary Policies
On Monday, July 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud threw out a lawsuit that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had filed against Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, the state of Minnesota, and state Attorney General Keith Ellison. The suit, which the DOJ said was a federal attempt to curtail the cities’ and state’s so‑called “sanctuary” policies, claimed that local rules limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement were unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on the federal government.
The DOJ’s argument rested on the doctrine of federal preemption: that federal law overrides any state or local rules that interfere with immigration‑related information sharing or the transfer of individuals to federal authorities. In his ruling, Judge Tostrud rejected that preemption claim. He held that the policies in question do not compel the federal government or its contractors to act, nor do they forbid them from acting; instead, they merely shape how state and local officials perform their duties.
A key element of the case was an advisory opinion issued by Attorney General Ellison, which stated that the Minnesota Constitution does not permit local jails to detain people longer simply because the federal government wants them on civil immigration violations. Judge Tostrud found the DOJ’s contention—that Ellison’s opinion barred local officials from contracting with federal immigration enforcement—to be untenable.
This dismissal follows a string of court decisions that have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to penalize cities that uphold sanctuary policies. In 2025, a federal judge barred the administration from withholding federal funding from municipalities that refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement, including Minneapolis. Local officials also warned that cuts to federal Medicaid and SNAP benefits were politically motivated rather than based on any legitimate policy criteria.
The lawsuit was filed by the DOJ on September 29, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge Tostrud, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, has a track record of ruling against the administration in similar disputes. His decision does not alter the current sanctuary policies in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Hennepin County; the cities and the state retain the authority to enforce local laws as they see fit.
The ruling clarifies the limits of federal preemption in immigration enforcement contexts. While the DOJ maintains that federal law supersedes local rules, Judge Tostrud’s opinion emphasizes that the federal government does not control how state and local officials carry out their responsibilities. The decision leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges but removes the immediate threat of federal penalties for the Twin Cities and the state.
Officials from the DOJ have not announced an appeal. The case remains a touchstone in the ongoing legal debate over the balance of power between federal immigration authorities and local jurisdictions. For residents and local officials, the ruling means that sanctuary policies will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The decision also underscores the broader national conversation about immigration enforcement and local autonomy. Although the DOJ’s lawsuit was grounded in the preemption doctrine, the judge’s dismissal suggests that courts may be reluctant to override local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
At present, no immediate changes are expected to the sanctuary policies in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Hennepin County. The DOJ may pursue other avenues to influence local immigration enforcement, but the current legal landscape favors the continuation of local autonomy in these matters. The case remains a key reference point for future disputes between federal immigration authorities and local governments across the United States.
The DOJ’s argument rested on the doctrine of federal preemption: that federal law overrides any state or local rules that interfere with immigration‑related information sharing or the transfer of individuals to federal authorities. In his ruling, Judge Tostrud rejected that preemption claim. He held that the policies in question do not compel the federal government or its contractors to act, nor do they forbid them from acting; instead, they merely shape how state and local officials perform their duties.
A key element of the case was an advisory opinion issued by Attorney General Ellison, which stated that the Minnesota Constitution does not permit local jails to detain people longer simply because the federal government wants them on civil immigration violations. Judge Tostrud found the DOJ’s contention—that Ellison’s opinion barred local officials from contracting with federal immigration enforcement—to be untenable.
This dismissal follows a string of court decisions that have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to penalize cities that uphold sanctuary policies. In 2025, a federal judge barred the administration from withholding federal funding from municipalities that refused to cooperate with immigration enforcement, including Minneapolis. Local officials also warned that cuts to federal Medicaid and SNAP benefits were politically motivated rather than based on any legitimate policy criteria.
The lawsuit was filed by the DOJ on September 29, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge Tostrud, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, has a track record of ruling against the administration in similar disputes. His decision does not alter the current sanctuary policies in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Hennepin County; the cities and the state retain the authority to enforce local laws as they see fit.
The ruling clarifies the limits of federal preemption in immigration enforcement contexts. While the DOJ maintains that federal law supersedes local rules, Judge Tostrud’s opinion emphasizes that the federal government does not control how state and local officials carry out their responsibilities. The decision leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges but removes the immediate threat of federal penalties for the Twin Cities and the state.
Officials from the DOJ have not announced an appeal. The case remains a touchstone in the ongoing legal debate over the balance of power between federal immigration authorities and local jurisdictions. For residents and local officials, the ruling means that sanctuary policies will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The decision also underscores the broader national conversation about immigration enforcement and local autonomy. Although the DOJ’s lawsuit was grounded in the preemption doctrine, the judge’s dismissal suggests that courts may be reluctant to override local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
At present, no immediate changes are expected to the sanctuary policies in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Hennepin County. The DOJ may pursue other avenues to influence local immigration enforcement, but the current legal landscape favors the continuation of local autonomy in these matters. The case remains a key reference point for future disputes between federal immigration authorities and local governments across the United States.
