In suing Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County over their sanctuary-oriented policies, the U.S. Justice Department isn’t advancing public safety. It’s waging a political war. By targeting jurisdictions that refuse to bend to federal anti-immigrant pressure, the administration is sending a message: obey or be punished. But in the fight for human dignity, those who stand for inclusion deserve praise, not lawsuits.

Minnesota’s Sanctuary Policies: What They Actually Do

So, what do these policies even entail? In Minnesota, the cities and county governments have adopted ordinances and administrative rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, especially when it comes to asking about immigration status, detaining individuals solely for ICE holds, or sharing certain data.
Star Tribune

These measures don’t “shield criminals” as the DOJ claims—they protect trust. In communities where immigrants fear that any interaction with local police could lead to deportation, victims and witnesses will stay silent. That leads to more crime, not less. True public safety is built on trust, reporting, and cooperation—not coercion.

Local leaders in Minneapolis and St. Paul have responded defiantly.

“City employees don’t work for the president; we work for the people who live here,” said St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey vowed, “We will not back down. We will fight with all our strength for our immigrant neighbors.”

KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News
These are not empty words—they are a stand against federal overreach.

The DOJ’s Lawsuit: A Political Sword, Not a Legal Shield

On September 29, 2025, the DOJ filed a lawsuit naming Minnesota, its two major cities, Hennepin County, and several state and local officials.
Department of Justice

CBS News

The suit accuses them of violating federal law by frustrating immigration enforcement. It asserts that some undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes like aggravated assault, burglary, drug and human trafficking are being “released” because local jurisdictions refuse to cooperate.
Department of Justice

This argument is thin. For one, local jurisdictions don’t “release” people; criminals are prosecuted under state or federal law. Secondly, many sanctuary policies apply only to civil immigration enforcement, not criminal prosecution. Drawing a straight line between limited cooperation and dangerous criminals roaming free is a rhetorical stunt.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi framed the lawsuit as necessary to preserve public safety. “Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens … by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” she said.
Department of Justice
Still, it’s telling that the government chose litigation over negotiation, escalation over compromise.

This is part of a broader pattern: the DOJ has sued jurisdictions like New York, Los Angeles, and Colorado over sanctuary statutes. Minnesota just became the next target.
Department of Justice

Department of Justice

Moreover, in August, the DOJ published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” it plans to pressure—Minnesota was included.
Department of Justice

The Stakes: Democracy, Federalism, and Justice

At its core, this lawsuit isn’t about legal consistency — it’s about power. The Trump administration is effectively telling local governments: toe the line or face the courts.

Federal Overreach vs. Local Autonomy
Local governments know their communities best. They decide how to allocate law enforcement resources, balance civil liberties, and build trust. Imposing a one-size-fits-all federal enforcement regime erodes local democracy.

Chilling Effect on Immigrant Communities
Pushing cooperation with ICE above all else forces immigrants into constant fear. It discourages them from reporting crime, engaging with social services, or stepping forward as witnesses. That means less safety, not more.

Weaponizing the Courts for Political Ends
Lawsuits become tools of retaliation. When localities resist harsh immigration policies, they find themselves in court, defending themselves at taxpayer expense. That’s not justice—it’s harassment.

The Precariousness of Sanctuary
Even jurisdictions that comply under duress will suffer. Over time, the creeping demands from the federal government may expand: requiring more data sharing, detainer compliance, and policy alignment. The line between “cooperation” and “subordination” is thin.

What Minnesota Should Do (and What Supporters Must Demand)

1. Fight Fully.
   Minnesota’s attorneys general and city counsels must rigorously defend their policies in federal court. They should challenge not just the underlying claims, but the logic of the DOJ’s attempt to centralize all immigration enforcement authority.
2. Elevate Voices from the Ground.
   Immigrant leaders, local community groups, and civil rights organizations must tell their stories—how sanctuary policies have made neighborhoods safer and more inclusive. The narrative matters in legal and public arenas.
3. Build Coalitions.
   Minnesota should not stand alone. Other sanctuary cities, states, and civil liberties organizations must join in solidarity. Litigation and advocacy must become coordinated, national in scope.
4. Push Congress to Act.
   The federal government shouldn’t have unilateral powers to audit, litigate, or penalize local governments that choose different enforcement approaches. Legislative protections for sanctuary jurisdictions are urgently needed.
5. Use Public Pressure.
   Public opinion is crucial. People must see that sanctuary policies are not “soft on crime,” but rooted in justice, trust, and human dignity. Framing matters more than ever.

Conclusion: Sanctuary as Strength, Not Weakness

Minnesota didn’t seek confrontation—but when the DOJ sues, confrontation is inevitable. Its leaders and communities have the chance to show that sanctuary is not a loophole for criminals, but a conscious choice for safe, inclusive cities.

Lawsuits like this one are intended to instill fear. They seek to push compliance through intimidation rather than persuasion. But communities rooted in decency, in protection, in neighborly solidarity can resist.

Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Minnesota have stood among the jurisdictions that dare to prioritize trust over coercion. Their fight is our fight—for an America where immigrants are human beings, not political wedges.

Let the courts hear this: we will not back down. We will not cower. Sanctuary is strength.