On Monday, September 29, 2025, the U.S. Justice Department initiated a significant legal action by filing a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota, along with several of its political subdivisions and officials, challenging their immigration sanctuary policies. The lawsuit targets the state itself, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt. The federal government alleges that these entities have implemented policies that obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts, thereby undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing public safety.
The lawsuit represents a continuation of the Justice Department’s broader campaign to confront jurisdictions across the United States that have adopted so-called “sanctuary” policies. These policies, which vary in scope and implementation, generally limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The federal government argues that such measures interfere with its authority to enforce immigration laws and create significant challenges for maintaining national security and public order.
Background of the Lawsuit
The U.S. Justice Department’s legal action stems from a longstanding tension between federal and local governments over immigration enforcement. Sanctuary policies, which have been adopted by numerous cities, counties, and states across the country, are designed to foster trust between local communities and law enforcement by limiting the involvement of local officials in federal immigration activities. Proponents of these policies argue that they protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, encourage community cooperation with police, and ensure that local resources are not diverted to federal immigration enforcement tasks.
However, the federal government views these policies as a direct challenge to its constitutional authority over immigration. The Justice Department’s lawsuit specifically contends that Minnesota’s sanctuary policies violate federal law by impeding the ability of ICE and other agencies to detain and deport individuals who are in the country illegally. The complaint argues that these policies create safe havens for undocumented immigrants, including those who may have committed crimes, and thus pose a risk to public safety.
In a statement accompanying the announcement of the lawsuit, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi asserted, “Minnesota officials are kindizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process.” Bondi’s use of the term “kindizing” appears to reflect a rhetorical flourish, emphasizing the Justice Department’s position that sanctuary policies undermine law enforcement efforts and potentially enable criminal activity by shielding undocumented immigrants from federal authorities.
Details of the Allegations
The Justice Department’s lawsuit alleges that Minnesota, along with Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County, have enacted policies that explicitly or implicitly restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These policies may include prohibitions on local law enforcement sharing information about individuals’ immigration status with federal authorities, refusing to honor ICE detainer requests, or limiting access to local jails for immigration enforcement purposes. While the specific policies cited in the lawsuit were not detailed in the initial announcement, they are likely to center on measures that have been widely debated in other sanctuary jurisdictions.
For example, Minneapolis and St. Paul, both major urban centers in Minnesota, have long been recognized as sanctuary cities. These cities have adopted resolutions or ordinances that limit the extent to which local police and other officials engage with federal immigration authorities. Similarly, Hennepin County, which encompasses Minneapolis and surrounding areas, has implemented policies that restrict cooperation with ICE, such as refusing to hold individuals in custody beyond their scheduled release dates solely for immigration purposes.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt are named in the lawsuit due to their roles in overseeing and implementing these policies. Ellison, as the state’s top legal officer, is responsible for defending Minnesota’s laws and policies, while Witt, as sheriff, oversees the operations of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, which manages local jails and law enforcement activities. The Justice Department argues that their actions, or lack thereof, contribute to the state’s defiance of federal immigration laws.
The Federal Government’s Legal Argument
The Justice Department’s lawsuit is grounded in the principle of federal supremacy, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes that federal law takes precedence over state or local laws when the two are in conflict. The federal government contends that Minnesota’s sanctuary policies violate this principle by obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws, particularly those outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The INA grants the federal government broad authority to regulate immigration, including the apprehension, detention, and removal of individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States. The Justice Department argues that local policies that limit cooperation with ICE undermine this authority and create inconsistencies in the application of federal law. For instance, when local jurisdictions refuse to honor ICE detainer requests—non-binding requests to hold individuals in custody for up to 48 hours beyond their release date to allow ICE to take custody—the federal government’s ability to deport individuals is significantly hindered.
Moreover, the Justice Department has pointed to specific federal statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits state and local governments from restricting the sharing of information regarding individuals’ immigration status with federal authorities. The lawsuit likely alleges that Minnesota’s policies violate this provision by creating barriers to communication between local and federal officials.
Minnesota’s Sanctuary Policies in Context
Minnesota’s adoption of sanctuary policies reflects a broader trend among progressive-leaning states and municipalities that seek to protect immigrant communities. The state has a significant immigrant population, including refugees and undocumented individuals, many of whom contribute to the cultural and economic fabric of cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul. Advocates for sanctuary policies argue that these measures are necessary to ensure that immigrants feel safe interacting with local law enforcement, accessing public services, and reporting crimes without fear of deportation.
Minneapolis, for example, has been a leader in sanctuary policies since the early 2000s. The city’s “Separation Ordinance,” passed in 2003 and reaffirmed in subsequent years, prohibits city employees, including police officers, from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status unless required by law. Similarly, St. Paul has adopted resolutions that emphasize its commitment to being a welcoming city for immigrants, limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement except in cases involving serious crimes.
Hennepin County has also taken steps to distance itself from federal immigration enforcement. The county’s sheriff’s office has a policy of not honoring ICE detainer requests unless they are accompanied by a judicial warrant, a stance that has been upheld by Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt. This policy aligns with broader efforts to protect the due process rights of individuals in custody and avoid potential legal liabilities associated with detaining individuals solely for immigration purposes.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has been a vocal supporter of immigrant rights, advocating for policies that promote inclusivity and fairness. His office has defended the state’s sanctuary policies in previous legal challenges, arguing that they are consistent with the state’s values and legal obligations. However, the Justice Department’s lawsuit now places Ellison in the position of defending these policies in federal court, where the outcome could have significant implications for Minnesota’s autonomy over its law enforcement practices.
The Justice Department’s Broader Strategy
Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s statement accompanying the lawsuit underscores the Justice Department’s commitment to challenging sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide. “The agency will keep suing jurisdictions that use sanctuary policies to defy federal law and hinder law enforcement,” Bondi said, signaling that Minnesota is just one of many targets in the federal government’s ongoing efforts to assert its authority over immigration enforcement.
This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal actions initiated by the Justice Department under multiple administrations. During the Trump administration (2017–2021), the federal government took aggressive steps to crack down on sanctuary cities, including withholding federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration laws. States and cities, in turn, filed lawsuits challenging these actions, leading to a series of court rulings that have shaped the legal landscape.
For example, in 2018, a federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration could not withhold certain federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that such actions exceeded the administration’s authority. However, other courts have upheld the federal government’s right to enforce immigration laws and penalize jurisdictions that obstruct those efforts. The Minnesota lawsuit will likely hinge on similar legal questions, including the extent to which states and localities can limit cooperation with federal authorities without violating federal law.
Reactions and Implications
The Justice Department’s lawsuit has sparked a range of reactions from stakeholders in Minnesota and beyond. Supporters of the federal government’s position argue that sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law and create public safety risks by allowing undocumented immigrants to avoid accountability. Critics of the lawsuit, however, contend that it represents an overreach by the federal government and an attempt to intimidate communities that prioritize inclusivity and immigrant rights.
In Minnesota, local leaders have defended their sanctuary policies as essential for building trust with immigrant communities. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, for instance, has previously stated that the city’s policies are designed to ensure that all residents feel safe reporting crimes and accessing services, regardless of their immigration status. Similarly, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter has emphasized the importance of creating a welcoming environment for immigrants, arguing that sanctuary policies strengthen rather than weaken public safety.
Immigrant advocacy groups have also weighed in, condemning the Justice Department’s lawsuit as an attack on vulnerable communities. Organizations such as the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota and the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee have called for solidarity in defending the state’s sanctuary policies, arguing that they protect families and promote community cohesion.
On the other hand, some residents and officials in Minnesota support the Justice Department’s efforts, citing concerns about illegal immigration and its impact on local resources. These individuals argue that sanctuary policies create inconsistencies in law enforcement and erode public confidence in the legal system.
Legal and Political Ramifications
The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for Minnesota and other sanctuary jurisdictions. If the federal government prevails, Minnesota may be forced to revise its policies to align with federal immigration enforcement priorities, potentially leading to increased cooperation with ICE and other agencies. Such a ruling could also embolden the Justice Department to pursue similar lawsuits against other states and localities, further centralizing control over immigration enforcement.
Conversely, if Minnesota successfully defends its policies, the lawsuit could strengthen the legal foundation for sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide. A favorable ruling for the state could affirm the right of local governments to limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement, reinforcing the principle of local autonomy.
Politically, the lawsuit is likely to deepen the divide between proponents and opponents of sanctuary policies. Immigration remains a highly polarizing issue in the United States, and legal battles like this one often serve as flashpoints for broader debates about federal power, state rights, and the treatment of immigrants. In Minnesota, the lawsuit could influence upcoming elections and shape public discourse on immigration policy.
Broader Context of Immigration Policy
The Minnesota lawsuit is unfolding against the backdrop of a complex and evolving national immigration landscape. In recent years, the United States has grappled with significant challenges related to immigration, including border security, asylum policies, and the treatment of undocumented immigrants. The Biden administration, which took office in January 2021, has sought to balance enforcement with humanitarian considerations, but tensions between federal and local governments have persisted.
Sanctuary policies have been a particular point of contention, with dozens of cities and states adopting measures to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. According to a 2023 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 600 jurisdictions in the United States have some form of sanctuary policy, ranging from informal practices to formal ordinances. These policies have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and heated political debates, reflecting deep divisions over the role of immigration in American society.
The Minnesota lawsuit also highlights the role of individual officials, such as Attorney General Keith Ellison and Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt, in shaping local responses to federal immigration enforcement. As elected officials, they face pressure to balance the interests of their constituents with the legal and political realities of federal authority. Their decisions will likely influence how other jurisdictions navigate similar challenges in the future.
Conclusion
The U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Minnesota and its officials marks a significant escalation in the ongoing battle over sanctuary policies and immigration enforcement. By targeting the state, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, and key officials like Keith Ellison and Dawanna S. Witt, the federal government is sending a clear message that it intends to challenge jurisdictions that resist its immigration policies. The outcome of this lawsuit will have implications not only for Minnesota but also for the broader debate over the balance of power between federal and local governments.
As the case moves forward, it will likely generate significant attention from policymakers, advocates, and the public. For now, the Justice Department’s actions underscore the enduring complexity of immigration policy in the United States and the challenges of reconciling competing priorities in a diverse and polarized nation.
