Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Lawsuits Over Minnesota Sanctuary Policies
A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a series of lawsuits filed by the Trump administration against the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt. The litigation targeted local policies that the U.S. Department of Justice characterized as sanctuary city policies,
which prohibit local authorities from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud issued the ruling on Monday, rejecting the administration’s arguments that these local measures were unconstitutional. According to MPR News, the administration had contended that federal law preempts local policies and that the sanctuary rules placed an undue burden on the federal government.
Legal Reasoning and the Supremacy Clause
The Trump administration’s lawsuit asserted that Minnesota’s sanctuary laws violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law is supreme to state and local law. The government sought to have these policies declared unconstitutional and requested that the court block their enforcement.
.gif "Legal Reasoning and the Supremacy Clause")
In his decision, Judge Tostrud found that the government’s preemption claims “failed.” He wrote that the local policies do not command the federal government or its contractors to act, nor do they forbid them from doing so. They do not control how the federal government or its contractors undertake their work,
Tostrud stated. Rather, they regulate how state and local officials perform their duties.
Focus on Attorney General Keith Ellison
The Justice Department’s legal challenge also targeted an advisory opinion issued by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. That opinion found that the Minnesota Constitution did not permit jails to hold individuals in custody for extended periods solely because the federal government requested detention for civil immigration violations.
For more on this story, see Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Lawsuits Against Minnesota Authorities.
The administration argued that Ellison’s advisory decision effectively prohibited local officials from contracting with federal immigration enforcement. However, Judge Tostrud ruled that the federal government’s claim in this regard was not plausible.
Broader Context of Immigration Enforcement
The dismissal arrives amid ongoing tension between the Trump administration and Minnesota officials regarding immigration enforcement. Earlier in 2026, the state was a focal point for federal immigration activity, with at one point over 3,000 federal immigration personnel present in Minnesota.
The relationship between the federal judiciary and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also been strained in recent months. In February, Judge Tostrud held the DHS in civil contempt for violating a court order. The violation involved the transfer of a detainee—a Mexican citizen identified as Fernando—to a facility in Texas. The judge ordered the federal government to compensate the detainee for a return flight to Minnesota after he was released in late January without his belongings.
This latest ruling is not the first time federal courts have intervened in the administration’s efforts to penalize local jurisdictions. In 2025, a federal judge blocked the administration from withholding federal funding from cities, including Minneapolis, that refused to assist with immigration enforcement. Minnesota has also faced threats from the administration regarding the potential reduction of federal Medicaid funds and SNAP benefits, actions that local officials have described as politically motivated.
Sources: Thehill.
Related reading