Trump's Legal Fail: Prez's Administration Dealt Major Blow as Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge to Minnesota Sanctuary Laws
The Trump administration has suffered a major legal defeat.
July 21 2026, Published 4:05 p.m. ET
The Trump administration has suffered a major legal defeat after a federal judge tossed its lawsuit seeking to dismantle Minnesota's sanctuary laws, dealing a significant setback to the president's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
The lawsuit, obtained by Radar, was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against the State of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt.
Major Trump Setback
President Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda suffered a courtroom setback.
Federal officials argued the state's sanctuary-style laws and local policies illegally interfered with ICE by limiting when local authorities could cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, share immigration-related information, and honor immigration detainers.
The case carried major implications because it was part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge sanctuary jurisdictions across the country.
Sanctuary policies generally limit how much state and local law enforcement agencies participate in enforcing federal immigration law, with supporters arguing the measures build trust between immigrant communities and police; however, critics contend they make it harder for ICE to detain and remove undocumented immigrants.
Immigration Fight Details
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison was among the defendants named in the federal lawsuit over the state's sanctuary policies.
In this case, the Justice Department claimed Minnesota's policies violated the Constitution by creating obstacles to federal immigration enforcement and sought a court order declaring the laws unconstitutional while preventing state and local officials from continuing to enforce them.
The judge wasn't convinced, however. In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud ruled the government's legal arguments fell short, finding its preemption claims failed because they conflicted with the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine – a legal principle that generally prevents the federal government from forcing states and local governments to carry out federal programs.
The court also rejected the DOJ's argument that Minnesota's policies unlawfully discriminated against the federal government.
ICE Enforcement
The lawsuit centered on cooperation with ICE.
The decision leaves Minnesota's challenged sanctuary laws and policies intact and represents a significant courtroom loss for the administration as it continues pressing immigration-related legal battles nationwide.
According to the lawsuit, federal officials argued local policies prevented ICE from effectively carrying out immigration enforcement by restricting information sharing and limiting cooperation from local law enforcement agencies.
The government claimed those policies impeded investigations, delayed arrests, and made it more difficult for ICE officers to take custody of individuals subject to removal proceedings.
Minnesota's Stance Explained
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Minnesota has the authority to decide how its own agencies and local governments participate in federal immigration matters.
State officials, however, maintained that Minnesota has the authority to decide how its own agencies and local governments participate in federal immigration matters.
The court ultimately agreed that the federal government failed to establish several of its constitutional claims, dismissing portions of the case for lack of jurisdiction while rejecting the remaining claims on their merits.
The ruling is expected to be closely watched by other states and cities with similar sanctuary policies, as well as by immigration advocates and federal officials, because it reinforces the legal limits on how far the federal government can go in requiring state and local authorities to assist with immigration enforcement.
