MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The U.S. Department of Justice is suing the state of Minnesota, its two largest cities, and Hennepin County for their sanctuary policies, alleging interference with federal immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit, filed on Monday, claims that policies in Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County allow dangerous criminals to evade deportation. The DOJ seeks a federal court decision to invalidate these policies, asserting they compromise public safety.
Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized that Minnesota officials risk the safety of citizens by permitting undocumented individuals to bypass legal proceedings.
This move positions Minnesota among numerous jurisdictions embroiled in legal disputes with the Trump administration over immigration policies, joining states like Colorado, Illinois, New York, and cities such as Boston.
However, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison argued that the state's actions do not obstruct the federal government's cooperation with local law enforcement in prosecuting dangerous individuals.
Ellison labeled the lawsuit as politically driven retaliation, declaring that Minnesota would respond robustly in court.
The suit references a nonbinding advisory opinion Ellison issued, indicating that there is no legal basis for local authorities to hold individuals based solely on immigration detainers if they are to be released from custody.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey reaffirmed the city’s commitment to being a welcoming environment for immigrants and criticized the DOJ for politically motivated actions that threaten community integrity.
Governor Tim Walz has previously denied Minnesota's characterization as a sanctuary state, asserting no statewide law protects undocumented immigrants from deportation. However, local jurisdictions do enforce policies that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
The DOJ's lawsuit follows a pattern of the Trump administration actively targeting sanctuary jurisdictions as part of its broader immigration policy agenda. Minnesota's case illustrates ongoing tensions between state and federal approaches to immigration enforcement, with officials poised to battle in court over the validity of local sanctuary policies.