Federal Judge Dismisses Justice Department Challenge to Minnesota Immigration Policies

A federal judge has dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to invalidate Minnesota laws and local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, handing the state and several local governments a significant victory in the continuing dispute over so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud ruled on July 20 that the federal government could not force Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul or Hennepin County to use their officers, detention facilities and information systems to help administer federal immigration law. The 56-page decision dismissed the case against the state, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt and the two cities.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in September 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign against jurisdictions that restrict cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The department argued that Minnesota’s policies conflicted with federal law, obstructed immigration enforcement and allowed people who could be subject to removal to leave local custody before ICE could take control of them.

The case presented a recurring constitutional question in the national immigration debate. The federal government has broad authority to regulate immigration, but states generally retain control over their own personnel, police departments, jails and administrative records.

Tostrud concluded that the Justice Department’s position crossed that constitutional line.

The federal government relied primarily on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to displace conflicting state laws. It argued that Minnesota’s restrictions were preempted because they interfered with federal immigration statutes, information-sharing rules and detainer procedures.

Tostrud acknowledged the federal government’s leading role in immigration policy. He found, though, that preemption could not be used to require state and local employees to carry out federal responsibilities. Under the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress generally cannot order state governments or their officers to administer a federal regulatory program.

The distinction was central to the ruling. Minnesota has not attempted to stop ICE officers from making arrests, operating detention facilities, or enforcing federal immigration law with federal personnel. The challenged measures instead control what Minnesota and its local governments will do with their own employees and resources.

“Congress cannot legislate to transform state governments or their political subdivisions” into federal administrative offices, Tostrud wrote while reviewing Supreme Court decisions on state sovereignty.

The lawsuit challenged several different policies.

Minnesota law restricts the disclosure of certain driver’s license and vehicle-registration information when the data would be used for civil immigration enforcement. Minneapolis and St. Paul ordinances limit local officers’ involvement in civil immigration investigations and restrict the release of personal information connected to U and T visa applicants, who are generally victims of qualifying crimes or human trafficking.

Hennepin County’s sheriff’s directive also prevents the jail from continuing to hold someone solely because ICE issued an administrative detainer. Attorney General Ellison had issued an advisory opinion concluding that Minnesota law does not authorize state or local officers to keep a person in custody after the person would otherwise be released based only on such a detainer.

Federal immigration detainers ask a jail to notify ICE before a person’s release and, in certain circumstances, continue holding the person briefly so federal officers can assume custody. The Justice Department argued that Minnesota and Hennepin County were improperly treating those requests as optional.

Tostrud rejected that argument. He concluded that federal law permits voluntary cooperation, including formal agreements that authorize trained local officers to perform immigration functions, but does not require a state or municipality to enter such an agreement. Treating federal detainers or cooperation provisions as commands would require local governments to provide personnel, jail space, and administrative work for a federal program.

The judge also rejected the Justice Department’s claim that Minnesota discriminated against the federal government in violation of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. That doctrine prevents states from directly regulating federal operations or singling out the federal government for unfavorable treatment.

Tostrud found that Minnesota’s laws regulate state officers and state-controlled information rather than ICE. The city ordinances similarly govern the actions of municipal employees, while the Hennepin County directive determines how the sheriff handles people held in the county jail.

The policies do not direct federal officers, prohibit federal enforcement, or control the manner in which ICE performs its work, the court found. The driver-information restrictions also apply to other entities that might use or disclose the records for immigration enforcement, rather than imposing a rule exclusively on the federal government.

Accepting the Justice Department’s immunity argument would have created a conflict with the anti-commandeering principle, Tostrud wrote. A ruling that Minnesota unlawfully discriminated against the federal government by refusing assistance would effectively mean that the state was constitutionally required to provide that assistance.

The ruling does not prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration law in Minnesota. ICE may continue using federal officers, federal databases, judicial warrants, and federally controlled detention resources. The decision instead limits the administration’s ability to make state and local participation mandatory.

Tostrud dismissed several claims with prejudice, including the principal claims decided on their legal merits. Other claims were dismissed without prejudice because the Justice Department had not established subject-matter jurisdiction or adequately connected certain defendants to the challenged state provisions.

The distinction could affect the government’s next move. Claims dismissed without prejudice could potentially be revised if the Justice Department can correct the jurisdictional problems. The administration also remains free to appeal the broader ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

For now, Minnesota’s state statutes, municipal ordinances and Hennepin County detention policy remain intact. The decision reinforces a line that has emerged in other sanctuary-jurisdiction cases: the federal government controls immigration law, but it generally must enforce that law with federal resources unless states and cities voluntarily agree to help.