Trump-appointed judge rejects DOJ lawsuit against Minnesota sanctuary policies

A federal judge nominated by President Trump dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit challenging Minnesota's sanctuary immigration laws, handing the administration a legal setback rooted in the same constitutional principles conservatives have long championed.

Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud issued a 56-page order Monday rejecting every claim the DOJ brought against the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County. The ruling found that Minnesota's laws limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents do not obstruct federal authority, they simply decline to assist it.

The distinction matters. Tostrud grounded his decision in the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering doctrine, a bedrock principle that bars the federal government from conscripting state and local governments to carry out federal programs. It is the same constitutional guardrail conservatives have invoked for decades against federal overreach on everything from gun regulations to environmental mandates.

Tostrud: "Refusing to help is not the same as impeding"

The judge, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench, wrote in his order that Minnesota's laws do not interfere with federal enforcement operations. They regulate only what state and local employees do on the job, not what ICE or any other federal agency can do independently.

"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. Rather, they regulate how state and local officials perform their duties."

That passage cuts to the heart of the DOJ's problem. The department argued that Minnesota's policies unconstitutionally single out federal immigration agents and inhibit their work. Tostrud rejected both claims. He noted that Minnesota's laws extend not just to federal agencies but also to private companies and state governments, meaning they do not target Washington specifically.

As Fox News reported, Tostrud went further, writing that "the framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." Accepting the administration's argument, the judge concluded, would upend that framework.

Five other jurisdictions have already beaten the same DOJ playbook

Minnesota is not the first state to prevail against this strategy. Federal courts in Los Angeles, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have all dismissed similar DOJ lawsuits targeting sanctuary policies. The Justice Department filed yet another suit against Maryland just last week.

The pattern raises a straightforward question: if the legal theory keeps failing in court, why does the DOJ keep filing? The administration has framed these lawsuits as part of a broader campaign, anchored by a presidential executive order, to identify and pressure jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The DOJ listed Minnesota among roughly a dozen states it labeled "sanctuary jurisdictions."

The administration's frustrations with Minnesota run deeper than the courtroom. After filing the lawsuit in September, the federal government launched Operation Metro Surge, sending approximately 4,000 agents into the state as part of an immigration crackdown. That operation has since drawn its own legal challenges and generated intense controversy.

The DOJ's broader pattern of courtroom losses is not unique to immigration. The administration has faced judicial rebukes on other fronts as well, suggesting a recurring gap between aggressive legal strategy and what federal judges are willing to sustain.

Ellison claims victory, but Minnesota's policies still shield illegal immigrants

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wasted no time celebrating the ruling. He cast it as a vindication of state sovereignty and a rebuke of the administration's enforcement posture.

"The Trump Administration, however, has no regard for this constitutional principle, so it nonetheless filed this lawsuit as part of its ongoing war against the people of Minnesota and its efforts to intimidate us into submission. They keep learning over and over that the people of Minnesota won't be intimidated. Nor will I."

Ellison's rhetoric is predictable, and revealing. He frames the dispute as the federal government bullying a state, rather than as a legitimate policy disagreement about whether local governments should cooperate with federal officers trying to enforce immigration law. His office argued throughout the case that "Minnesota is not impeding immigration law, it is just not assisting."

That framing is technically accurate and practically convenient. Minnesota's laws prohibit state and local police from helping ICE agents, restrict the sharing of driver's license information with federal authorities, and shield illegal immigrants from local enforcement actions that would otherwise support federal deportation efforts. The state is not blocking ICE at the border. But it is refusing to open the door.

The judge acknowledged a practical consequence the state's defenders rarely emphasize: forcing states to assist with federal immigration enforcement could shift costs and resources away from state priorities. That budgetary concern factored into Tostrud's analysis. It is a real consideration, but it also means Minnesota taxpayers are subsidizing a policy environment that makes federal enforcement harder and more expensive.

The tensions between the administration and Minnesota's political leadership have played out well beyond the courtroom. A parallel ruling on the same theme underscores how consistently federal judges, including Trump appointees, have sided with states on the anticommandeering question.

Operation Metro Surge added 4,000 agents, and fresh legal problems

The DOJ lawsuit was only one front in the administration's campaign against Minnesota. Operation Metro Surge deployed roughly 4,000 federal agents into the state, making it one of the largest immigration enforcement operations in the interior United States. The surge followed the September lawsuit and escalated the confrontation between Washington and state officials.

That operation has generated its own legal and political fallout. AP News reported that Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino is expected to leave Minneapolis amid a leadership reshuffling, with border czar Tom Homan now in direct charge of the Minnesota operation and reporting to the White House. A separate federal judge, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, is weighing whether to temporarily halt the surge entirely.

Menendez has been openly skeptical of the operation's scope and legal basis. During a hearing, she pressed federal lawyers on whether there was any limit to executive power exercised under the banner of immigration enforcement.

The New York Post reported that the operation deployed approximately 2,000 ICE agents and 1,000 Border Patrol officers beginning December 1. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Governor Tim Walz outlining three conditions Minnesota would need to meet for federal agents to withdraw, a letter state lawyers called a "ransom note." Two protesters were fatally shot by federal immigration agents during the surge.

The administration's approach in Minnesota, combining litigation, a massive agent deployment, and public pressure, reflects a strategy that treats uncooperative states as adversaries. But the courts have repeatedly drawn a line between federal authority to enforce immigration law on its own and federal authority to force states to help.

The administration's fraught relationship with the judiciary extends beyond immigration. From rapid personnel moves in U.S. attorney offices to ongoing clashes over the scope of executive power, federal judges have emerged as a persistent check on the administration's most aggressive legal positions.

DOJ has not said whether it will appeal

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Whether the DOJ appeals Tostrud's decision or shifts its strategy remains an open question. But the administration's track record in these cases, losses in Los Angeles, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and now Minnesota, suggests the legal foundation for this approach is weak.

The anticommandeering doctrine is not a liberal invention. It is a conservative constitutional principle, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, that limits federal power over state governments. When red states invoked it to resist Obama-era mandates on gun enforcement and health care, the right cheered. The principle does not change because the policy goal does.

Minnesota's sanctuary laws remain bad policy. They make it harder for federal agents to locate and remove illegal immigrants. They create gaps in cooperation that criminals can exploit. And they send a message that state leaders would rather posture against Washington than help enforce the nation's immigration laws.

But bad policy is not the same as unconstitutional policy. Judge Tostrud, a Trump appointee, made that distinction clear. The DOJ's challenge to state laws through federal litigation has run into the same wall in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. If the administration wants states to cooperate with immigration enforcement, it needs a strategy that works inside the Constitution, not one that keeps losing in the courts its own president helped build.

The Tenth Amendment does not take sides on immigration. It takes sides on federalism. And federalism, when it is inconvenient, is still the deal.