Trump-appointed judge deals major blow to administration's sanctuary city crackdown in Minnesota ruling

By John Damon | Just The News Iowa

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has thrown out a Justice Department lawsuit against Minnesota's sanctuary immigration policies, ruling that states cannot be forced to help enforce federal immigration law. The decision is a significant setback for the Trump administration's broader push to challenge sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide.

Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, issued a 56-page opinion Monday dismissing every claim brought by the Department of Justice against Minnesota and Hennepin County. The ruling centers on whether the Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to override state laws that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

What the ruling means for immigration enforcement

Tostrud concluded that Minnesota's sanctuary laws regulate only state and local officials, not the federal government. The judge wrote that the challenged policies “do not command the federal government or its contractors to act” and “do not forbid the federal government or its contractors from acting.”

Instead, he said, they simply “regulate how state and local officials perform their duties.” The ruling leans heavily on the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing states to use their own resources to carry out federal programs.

“The framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States,” Tostrud wrote, adding that the federal government “may not command the States' officers...to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

Iowa legal expert weighs in on the ruling

Eric Wessan, an attorney in the Iowa Solicitor General's Office, told Fox News Digital that Tostrud's ruling may conflict with an earlier Eighth Circuit decision. That circuit, which includes Iowa and Minnesota, previously found that a state law obstructing federal immigration enforcement was preempted.

“Judge Tostrud cited that opinion to explain that preemption is narrow,” Wessan said. “I think that his opinion is hard to square with the binding precedent.”

Wessan acknowledged that states generally cannot be forced to help enforce federal immigration law. But he argued the harder 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 want to is a harder question, and probably depends on the specific state and state laws.”

Minnesota's sanctuary policies under fire

Minnesota's sanctuary laws include policies that bar local officials from holding immigrants solely on ICE detainers, restrict participation in federal immigration enforcement, and limit the sharing of driver's license and immigration-related data with ICE.

Minnesota leaders have defended these policies, arguing they encourage immigrants in the country illegally to cooperate with local law enforcement. They say reporting crimes or serving as witnesses should not automatically expose someone to immigration enforcement.

The ruling comes after months of heightened immigration enforcement in Minnesota, where the Trump administration launched a large-scale ICE initiative. The operation intensified after two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were shot and killed by federal agents in January. Their deaths heightened scrutiny of Minnesota's immigration policies and led President Trump to remove then- from overseeing the operation, with border czar Tom Homan taking over.

Homan's push for local cooperation

After taking over, Homan argued that would become less necessary if state and local officials cooperated with federal immigration authorities. He said his “main focus now is drawdown,” but stressed that reducing the federal presence would require greater cooperation from Minnesota officials.

“Cooperation with local authorities, especially jails and prisons, will give federal agents better access to people in the United States illegally,” Homan said. “This would then lead to fewer federal law enforcement [agents] on Minnesota streets.”

What this means for Iowa

While the ruling directly affects Minnesota, legal experts say it could have implications for Iowa and other states in the Eighth Circuit. Iowa has not adopted sanctuary policies, but the decision could influence how future legal challenges are handled.

Wessan argued the debate over the fine line between impeding and refusing to help distracts from the larger immigration crisis.

“The country is facing an immigration crisis,” he said. “Rather than figuring out the fine line between impeding and refusing to help, Minnesota should appreciate the federal government's willingness to help with the illegal immigration crisis — and the waste, fraud, and abuse that accompanies it.”

The Trump administration continues to pursue similar lawsuits in several other states. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This article is based on reporting by Elaine Mallon of Fox News Digital.