Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota today, september 30, 2025, challenging the constitutionality of state laws that limit cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. The legal action centers on Minnesota’s “North Star” policies, which the DOJ argues obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts and violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit escalates a growing national conflict between the Biden administration and states adopting policies designed to limit local involvement in immigration enforcement. Minnesota joins a handful of states and cities facing federal challenges over so-called “sanctuary” policies, including recent actions against Colorado and Los Angeles.The Department recently announced a Memorandum of Understanding with Nevada to enhance collaboration on immigration enforcement, and the Mayor of Louisville revoked the city’s sanctuary policy following a threat of legal action from the Justice Department.
According to the complaint filed in the District of Minnesota, the state’s laws prevent state and local officials from sharing details about a person’s immigration status with federal authorities, even when that individual has been lawfully arrested. The DOJ contends these restrictions hinder the Department’s ability to identify and remove individuals who pose a threat to public safety and national security.
“The Department of justice is committed to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws and ensuring the safety and security of our communities,” said a statement released by the Office of Public Affairs. “Minnesota’s policies actively undermine these efforts and create an environment where individuals unlawfully present in the United States can evade federal law enforcement.”
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Minnesota’s laws are preempted by federal immigration law and an injunction preventing the state from enforcing those provisions. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for other states considering or implementing similar policies, perhaps reshaping the landscape of immigration enforcement across the country.
