As the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moves forward with lawsuits against Illinois and New York over their sanctuary laws, Minnesota and its largest cities are bracing for similar legal action. The Trump administration’s DOJ has accused the states of deliberately impeding federal immigration enforcement, specifically by preventing federal immigration officers from carrying out their duties, including rounding up and deporting undocumented immigrants.
In response, Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has vowed to fight back against any potential lawsuit, expressing his commitment to protecting the state’s sanctuary policies. “I have no fear of Trump, and his threats have no effect on my determination to protect Minnesota from his authoritarian bullying,” Ellison stated. He emphasized that his duty is to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota’s constitution, not to comply with federal demands that he believes overreach state authority.
Minnesota’s position as a sanctuary state stems from local and state policies designed to protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration enforcement. These policies often limit local law enforcement’s role in enforcing federal immigration laws, a stance that has drawn the ire of the Trump administration.
Sanctuary Cities and Local Ordinances in Minnesota
Minnesota’s largest cities, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, have long adopted policies aimed at limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Minneapolis, for example, passed a “separation ordinance” in 2003, which restricts city employees from asking about an individual’s immigration status or from participating in the enforcement of immigration laws. St. Paul followed suit in 2004, adopting a similar ordinance that also prohibits city employees from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter reaffirmed his city’s commitment to these policies, stating, “Our city workers fight fires, investigate crimes, fill potholes, and provide safe spaces for youth with no regard to citizenship status.” Carter emphasized that the city does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration laws or require individuals to provide proof of citizenship to access city services.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a vocal opponent of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, also stood firm in his refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. During a January 28 press conference with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Frey made clear that Minneapolis police officers would not cooperate with federal law enforcement in matters of immigration enforcement. His comments drew the ire of Republican lawmakers, who argued that the mayor’s stance was jeopardizing public safety by preventing the removal of dangerous criminals.
In response, a group of Republican members of Congress, led by Rep. Peter Stauber, sent a letter to Mayor Frey accusing him of obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts. The GOP lawmakers argued that Frey’s refusal to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hampered efforts to remove undocumented immigrants who were allegedly dangerous criminals. However, Frey’s office did not respond to the letter, and the city is prepared for any legal challenges that may arise from the ongoing conflict.
The DOJ Lawsuits and Tensions with the Trump Administration
The Justice Department’s lawsuits, targeting Illinois, Chicago, Cook County, and New York, have been framed as efforts to ensure that local and state governments comply with federal immigration laws. DOJ officials claim that these jurisdictions are in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that federal law takes precedence over state law.
The DOJ has also threatened to cut off federal funding to these so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, a move that would impact local and state police departments, which rely on these funds to support various public safety initiatives. In Minnesota, this threat has been met with resistance, as state officials, including Ellison, have expressed their commitment to defending their sanctuary policies in court if necessary.
In addition to sanctuary city ordinances, one of the main issues at the heart of the DOJ’s legal action is the “detainer” policy. Detainers are requests from ICE for local authorities to hold individuals in custody so that federal immigration agents can take them into federal detention for deportation. Several Minnesota counties, including Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey, have adopted policies that refuse to honor these detainer requests, citing concerns over constitutional protections and potential legal liabilities.
Ellison has supported these policies, noting that Minnesota law prohibits law enforcement from holding individuals on immigration detainers if they would otherwise be released from custody. In a letter to Ramsey County, Ellison wrote, “Federal regulations themselves specify that detainers issued by ICE are requests, not commands, which federal courts around the country have also recognized.” He also cited the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers for state and local governments and limits the ability of the federal government to compel state officials to enforce federal immigration laws.
The Broader Political and Legal Implications
The lawsuits against Illinois, New York, and other sanctuary states represent a broader political and legal struggle over the role of state and local governments in enforcing federal immigration laws. While the Trump administration insists that local and state authorities must cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, sanctuary cities and states argue that they have the right to limit cooperation in order to protect their residents, especially undocumented immigrants who contribute to local communities.
The legal battles will likely center on the conflict between the Supremacy Clause, which mandates that federal law supersedes state law, and the Tenth Amendment, which protects the rights of states to govern themselves in areas not explicitly regulated by the federal government. Ultimately, these cases could be decided by the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, with implications for the future of federalism and immigration policy in the United States.
As Minnesota and other sanctuary jurisdictions prepare for potential legal challenges, state and local leaders are bracing for a protracted battle that could have significant consequences for the state’s immigration policies and the broader debate over the limits of federal authority. Minnesota’s sanctuary status and the ongoing tensions with the Trump administration will continue to be a focal point of political discourse in the coming months.
Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.