National & Minnesota Report

The federal government’s authority to challenge sanctuary policies is rooted in its constitutional power over immigration, supported by the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration laws. This authority, however, is balanced by the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” states or localities to enforce federal law. 

Constitutional principles

• Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal laws as the “supreme Law of the Land”. Courts have consistently held that the federal government possesses “plenary power” (broad, exclusive authority) over the admission and removal of non-citizens. State or local policies that conflict with or undermine federal immigration law are therefore preempted and can be challenged by the federal government.
• 10th Amendment and Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory schemes. This has led courts to rule that while local governments cannot obstruct federal agents, they also cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement by honoring immigration detainer requests.
• Spending Clause: Congress can use its spending power to influence state policies by attaching conditions to federal funding. However, the Supreme Court has set limits on this power, requiring that any funding conditions be clearly stated, related to the funding’s purpose, and not coercive. Federal attempts to withhold grants from sanctuary jurisdictions have been challenged in court, with some rulings invalidating the use of grant conditions for immigration enforcement.

  This provision has limited applications with the universality of Republican control of the Federal government at the Executive, legislative and Judicial levels. This means the system enables the ability for Donald J Trump (R) as, to run roughshod over the Constitution and all of American citizens. There must be some sort of political revolt. Be it at the ballot box, in 2026, where hopefully America has awakened from its stupor and delivers a Democratically controlled House and Senate, with enough votes to impeach and convict the Great Orange Imbecile or ultimately in 2028, and trounce the Republicans completely.

Existing Federal Immigration Statutes

Federal laws passed by Congress empower the federal government to challenge sanctuary policies.

• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): The INA outlines a comprehensive framework for immigration and is the primary statute federal officials use to argue for federal supremacy in immigration matters.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1373: This federal statute prohibits state and local governments from restricting officials from sending or receiving information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status to federal immigration authorities. The Department of Justice has challenged sanctuary policies that restrict information sharing, but court rulings on the constitutionality of this statute have been mixed.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1324: This law prohibits knowingly harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants, and federal officials have cited it to challenge sanctuary jurisdictions.

Executive Branch Actions

The executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), can use its authority to challenge sanctuary policies.

• Litigation: The DOJ can and has filed lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary policies, arguing they are preempted by federal law or unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
• Executive Orders: Presidents have issued executive orders directing federal agencies to identify and take action against sanctuary jurisdictions, though some of these actions have been challenged in court.

  These Executive Orders can be overturned by a new administration, unless Congress sees clear to limitations on the Presidency to do so.

Yesterday, the DOJ put out the following press release.

Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies

Monday, September 29, 2025

 

WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt over the State’s, Cities’, and County’s sanctuary city policies that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.

Not only are the sanctuary city policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Minnesota’s, Minneapolis’, St. Paul’s, and Hennepin County’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities results in the release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.

“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”

“Shielding illegal aliens from federal law enforcement is a blatant violation of the law that carries dangerous consequences,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate  of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to vigorously uphold the rule of law by holding sanctuary jurisdictions fully accountable.”

On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations. On August 5, 2025, Attorney General Bondi published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which included Minnesota, and vowed to bring litigation to end these policies nationwide. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in Boston, New York City, Rochester, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Los Angeles. Recently, the Department announced a new Memorandum of Understanding to fully collaborate with Nevada on immigration enforcement, and the Mayor of Louisville revoked the city’s sanctuary policy after the Justice Department threatened legal action.