U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuits against Minnesota and several local jurisdictions on Monday, July 20, 2026. The court rejected claims that local “sanctuary city” policies—which restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—violate the Constitution or preempt federal law, marking a legal setback for the administration.
Legal Reasoning Behind the Dismissal
The Trump administration’s legal strategy relied on the argument that Minnesota’s sanctuary policies were unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, asserting that state and local laws should not obstruct federal immigration enforcement. However, Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud found these arguments unpersuasive, granting motions to dismiss the lawsuits filed against the state, the city of Minneapolis, the city of St. Paul, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt.
In his ruling, Tostrud emphasized that the local policies in question do not actively interfere with federal operations. He explicitly stated that the challenged local provisions do not command the federal government to act, nor do they forbid federal authorities from carrying out their duties.
“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.”
Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, U.S. District Court ruling
According to Thehill, the court further held that the challenged policies do not single the federal government out for less favorable treatment, at least not in any sense that shows an intergovernmental immunity violation.
The ruling effectively dismantled the administration’s attempt to characterize these local ordinances as an unconstitutional burden on federal authority.
Scope of the Rejected Claims
The administration’s legal offensive was broad, targeting not only municipal policies but also state-level guidance. As reported by MPR News, the Justice Department specifically challenged an advisory opinion issued by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. That opinion had previously concluded that the state Constitution does not permit jails to hold people in custody longer because the federal government wanted them on civil immigration violations.
The federal government argued that Ellison’s guidance effectively prohibited local officials from contracting with federal immigration enforcement. Judge Tostrud rejected this, finding the government’s claim that the advisory opinion prohibited such cooperation was not plausible.
Context of Ongoing Federal-State Friction
This ruling follows a period of heightened tension between the Trump administration and Minnesota officials. The state has been a focal point for the administration’s immigration crackdown, with reports indicating that over 3,000 federal immigration personnel were deployed to the state at one point earlier this year. This environment has been marked by significant volatility, including the deaths of two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, in Minneapolis during an encounter with federal immigration authorities in January.
The relationship between Judge Tostrud and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also been strained. In February, Tostrud held the agency in civil contempt for violating a court order related to the transport of a detainee, identified as a Mexican citizen named Fernando, to a facility in Texas. The judge ordered the federal government to compensate the detainee for a return flight to Minnesota, citing a lack of proper explanation from federal officials regarding their actions.
The current legal victory for Minnesota is not the first time the courts have intervened in the administration’s financial pressure tactics. In 2025, a federal judge blocked an attempt by the administration to withhold federal funding from cities, including Minneapolis, that refuse to assist with immigration enforcement. Local officials have also reported that the administration has threatened to cut Medicaid funds and SNAP benefits in response to these policies, which local officials have characterized as politically motivated.
As of late July 2026, the Justice Department has not publicly outlined its next steps following the dismissal.
Related reading
