National & Minnesota Report
St Paul has a historical foundation with the Federal government which warrants us to learn from the Prohibition Era.
During Prohibition (1920–1933), St. Paul became infamous for its “O’Connor System” — an informal agreement between local officials against federal authorities. Under this arrangement:
Criminals were allowed to live in or pass through St. Paul if they agreed not to commit crimes within the city.
Local police deliberately limited information sharing or any cooperation with federal agents, prioritizing local peace over federal enforcement agendas.
While legally murky and ethically problematic, this shows that St. Paul has historically exercised autonomy in choosing how to cooperate (or not) with federal mandates when it believed local peace and governance were at stake.
Today, St. Paul can channel that same principle—local control to protect local interests—but within the legal boundaries of the Constitution and federalism.
St. Paul needs a legal framework and a reliance on local autonomy.
St. Paul can lawfully resist overreach by relying on:
- 10th Amendment & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
- The federal government cannot force local law enforcement to detain or hold individuals for ICE or DHS.
- St. Paul police and city officials should not honor immigration detainers unless supported by a judicial warrant.
- Limit Cooperation Without Obstruction
- Federal agents can enforce federal laws, but St. Paul is not obligated to help.
This will effectively result enforce a “don’t ask, don’t share” policy where city employees do not collect or share immigration status unless required by law (as per 8 U.S.C. § 1373’s evolving interpretation).
How to Protect Federal Funding?
Under the Spending Clause, the federal government cannot impose coercive grant conditions unrelated to the purpose of the funds.
St. Paul is already suing over this issue.
Maintain the lawsuit with Fresno and expand it if needed.
Document all harm caused by federal threats to funding.
Lobby Congress to create legislation protecting sanctuary jurisdictions.
Plan of Action: A Six-Point Local Strategy
- Affirm Sanctuary Policies Through City Ordinance
- Strengthen local law that prohibits city employees (including police) from inquiring about immigration status.
- Create clear firewalls between city services and federal immigration enforcement.
- Establish a Legal Defense Fund
- Allocate city funds (or partner with nonprofits) to create a legal defense fund for immigrants and families facing ICE enforcement.
- Similar programs in cities like NYC have reduced deportation rates significantly.
In turn this establishes a need to:
- Train city employees on legal rights
- Provide mandatory training on the limits of federal power and how to interact with ICE without violating the law.
- Include housing inspectors, police, school employees, and health workers.
Appoint a Federal Compliance Review Task Force
By creating a local task force led by the City Attorney the city will be able to:
- Monitor federal interactions and report all activities.
- Ensure federal immigration enforcement does not violate constitutional rights.
- Advise city departments on compliance with court rulings.
Community Engagement & Transparency
Hold regular town halls and legal clinics in partnership with immigrant advocacy organizations.
Establish a hotline for residents to report ICE activity or unlawful detentions.
Intergovernmental Collaboration
Coordinate with other sanctuary jurisdictions (Minneapolis, Hennepin County, national partners like NYC and L.A.).
St. Paul needs to call upon other municipalities and in turn arshe resources, legal strategies, and media campaigns to amplify unified resistance.
The message is clear and should be framed in the following manner
- St. Paul faces a constitutional fight for local control.
- A moral imperative to protect all residents regardless of immigration status.
- A financial necessity, since the city’s $262 million in federal funds should not be leveraged as political punishment.
Conclusion: A Principled, Lawful Stand
St. Paul’s response should not be framed as defiance, but as a constitutionally grounded assertion of its rights under the Tenth Amendment. Just as it did during Prohibition—albeit more carefully and legally—St. Paul can choose not to be a passive enforcer of federal agendas that harm its communities.
By acting now, the city can create a model for other jurisdictions nationwide navigating the same legal and ethical challenges.