The Trump administration suffered a significant setback in its efforts to challenge Minnesota's sanctuary immigration policies after a federal judge tossed out its lawsuit.
The lawsuit, which was filed by the Justice Department, aimed to compel the state to assist federal immigration enforcement, but Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud rejected the argument, ruling that 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 that the challenged laws regulate only state and local officials, not the federal government.
"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.
Some have expressed skepticism about the ruling, however, with Eric Wessan, an attorney in the Iowa Solicitor General's Office, arguing that it conflicts with an earlier decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"States across the country have passed laws making state immigration crimes. The Eighth Circuit found one of those laws obstructed federal immigration enforcement, and so it was preempted," Wessan said. "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 had argued that 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.
Tostrud rejected this argument, however, concluding 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."
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."
The ruling comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue similar lawsuits challenging sanctuary policies in several other states.
