A federal judge nominated by President Trump handed the administration a rare legal setback, tossing out the Justice Department's entire case against Minnesota's sanctuary immigration policies, a ruling that could complicate the White House's nationwide push to force state and local cooperation with ICE.
Chief U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud dismissed every claim the DOJ brought against the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County in a 56-page opinion issued Monday. The Trump appointee concluded that Minnesota's sanctuary-style laws regulate only state and local officials, not the federal government, and that the Constitution does not give Washington the power to conscript state personnel into federal immigration enforcement.
The ruling landed squarely on the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that bars Congress from ordering states to carry out federal regulatory programs. Tostrud found that the DOJ's Supremacy Clause argument fell short because Minnesota's laws do not block ICE from doing its own work. They simply decline to volunteer state resources for the job.
The judge's opinion drew a sharp distinction between active interference and passive non-cooperation. Fox News Digital reported that Tostrud wrote plainly in the opinion:
"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 framing matters. The DOJ had argued that Minnesota's restrictions, which bar local officials from holding immigrants solely on ICE detainers, limit participation in federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the sharing of driver's license and immigration-related data with ICE, amounted to illegal obstruction of federal law. Tostrud rejected every one of those claims.
He grounded the ruling in founding-era principles, writing that "the framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." And he added that the federal government "may not command the States' officers... to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."
One line from the opinion distilled the entire dispute into six words: "Refusing to help is not the same as impeding."
For conservatives who want aggressive immigration enforcement, and who rightly expect state governments to cooperate, the distinction feels like a technicality that lets sanctuary jurisdictions off the hook. But the anti-commandeering doctrine is not a progressive invention. It has deep roots in conservative constitutional thought, and the Supreme Court has upheld it in cases that had nothing to do with immigration. The same principle that prevents Washington from forcing states to enforce gun-control regulations also prevents Washington from forcing states to enforce immigration detainers.
That does not make Minnesota's sanctuary policies wise. It means the legal path to dismantling them runs through Congress, not through the courts, at least under this ruling. Courts have been actively reshaping the boundaries of executive power across multiple fronts this term, and the administration's sanctuary strategy now faces a significant judicial obstacle.
Not everyone in the legal world accepted Tostrud's reasoning. Eric Wessan, an attorney in the Iowa Solicitor General's Office, told Fox News Digital that the opinion conflicts with binding appellate precedent in the Eighth Circuit, the federal appeals court whose jurisdiction includes Minnesota.
Wessan pointed to a prior Eighth Circuit decision that found a state immigration law obstructed federal enforcement and was therefore preempted. He argued Tostrud cited that same opinion but reached a conclusion that cuts the other way:
"States across the country have passed laws making state immigration crimes. The Eighth Circuit (which includes Minnesota) found one of those laws obstructed federal immigration enforcement, and so it was preempted. Judge Tostrud cited that opinion to explain that preemption is narrow. I think that his opinion is hard to square with the binding precedent."
Wessan acknowledged the baseline constitutional principle, states are not required to help the federal government enforce federal immigration law, but argued the harder question is whether states can actively ban cooperation when local officials or municipalities want to participate. That distinction could matter on appeal.
He also offered a blunter policy argument, one that speaks to common sense more than constitutional theory:
"The country is facing an immigration crisis. 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."
That framing captures the frustration many conservatives feel. The legal question may be complicated, but the practical question is not: when federal agents are trying to remove illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, state governments that refuse to share basic information make the job harder, more dangerous, and more expensive for taxpayers.
Border czar Tom Homan, who took over oversight of Operation Metro Surge after President Trump removed then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from the role, has made the practical case repeatedly. Cooperation with local authorities, especially jails and prisons, would give federal agents better access to people in the country illegally, he argued. That would mean fewer ICE agents conducting enforcement operations on Minnesota streets.
Homan said his "main focus now is drawdown," but stressed that reducing the federal footprint requires greater cooperation from state and local officials. The logic is straightforward: if local jails notify ICE when they are about to release someone with an immigration detainer, agents can make the arrest in a controlled setting. Without that cooperation, ICE has to find the same person on the street, a scenario that is riskier for agents, bystanders, and the targets themselves.
The risks are not hypothetical. Two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were shot and killed by federal agents in Minnesota in January, weeks apart. Those deaths led directly to the leadership change on Operation Metro Surge. The broader reporting on the case noted that the Trump administration's sanctuary lawsuits extend beyond Minnesota to several other states, including Virginia.
The administration has faced judicial resistance on other fronts as well. The Supreme Court blocked Trump's birthright citizenship executive order earlier this year, and legal observers have noted that courts, including judges appointed by Republican presidents, have not hesitated to draw lines around executive authority when they believe the Constitution requires it.
Tostrud's ruling does not end the broader legal fight. The DOJ can appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and Wessan's argument about conflicting precedent suggests the appellate court may see the case differently. The administration is also pursuing similar lawsuits in other states, and different federal judges could reach different conclusions on the same constitutional questions.
But for now, Minnesota's sanctuary framework stands. Local officials cannot be compelled to hold immigrants on ICE detainers. State agencies cannot be forced to share certain data with federal immigration authorities. And the practical consequence is that ICE must conduct enforcement operations without the cooperation of the state's own law enforcement infrastructure.
Fox News Digital reached out to both the White House and the Justice Department for comment on the ruling. Neither response was reported. The silence itself may signal that the administration is preparing an appeal rather than accepting the loss.
Meanwhile, the debate over immigration policy and executive power continues to play out in courtrooms across the country. The tension between federal enforcement priorities and state-level resistance is not new, but Tostrud's ruling sharpens the stakes: if the anti-commandeering doctrine protects sanctuary policies from federal lawsuits, then the only reliable path to mandatory cooperation runs through legislation, not litigation.
Minnesota's leaders chose not to help. A Trump-appointed judge said the Constitution lets them make that choice. Whether Congress will step in and change the equation is the question that actually matters now.