# United States v. State of Minnesota (0:25-cv-03798) *Federal suit over Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Hennepin County immigration-cooperation provisions; dismissed 2026-07-20; on appeal to the Eighth Circuit as No. 26-2905* *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:25-cv-03798, is a civil action the United States filed on 29 September 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The defendants are the State of [[Minnesota]], the [[City of Minneapolis]], the [[City of St. Paul]], [[Hennepin County, Minnesota]], Attorney General [[Keith Ellison]], and [[Hennepin County Sheriff]] Dawanna S. Witt. Ellison and Witt are sued in their official capacities.[^1] The docket classifies the case as nature of suit 950 (Constitutional – State Statute), with 28 U.S.C. § 2201 as the cause and the United States as plaintiff.[^2] The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against three groups of measures: Minnesota driver-data statutes; Minneapolis and St. Paul ordinances; and a Hennepin County Sheriff's directive. It also challenges Article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution as read in an Attorney General advisory opinion.[^3] The [[United States Department of Justice]] announced the filing as a suit over the defendants' "sanctuary city policies that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws." Its release stated that the policies are "illegal under federal law."[^4] On 20 July 2026, Chief Judge [[Eric C. Tostrud]] granted all four motions to dismiss, and judgment was entered the same day. The docket header gives 23 July 2026 as the termination date.[^5] The United States filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit on 18 September 2026. The appeal was assigned No. 26-2905 ([[United States v. State of Minnesota (26-2905)]]).[^6] Through its last entry on 24 September 2026, the district docket records no appellate decision.[^6] ## Background The Justice Department's release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi, on her first day in office, instructed the Civil Division to identify state and local laws and policies that impede federal immigration operations. It also states that on 5 August 2025 she published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions that included Minnesota.[^7] According to the complaint, Bondi wrote to Governor [[Tim Walz]] on 13 August 2025. The letter urged him to "eliminate laws, policies, and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement."[^8] The complaint quotes Walz's reply of 19 August 2025 as calling the federal effort a "misguided political agenda." The complaint attributes Minnesota's status as a sanctuary jurisdiction to the period "under the leadership of Governor Tim Walz."[^8] ## Parties and challenged provisions ### State of Minnesota The complaint challenges Article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, the state's search-and-seizure guarantee. It does so to the extent that the provision bars state agencies from holding people on immigration detainers or from acting under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) agreements.[^3] The complaint states that Advisory Opinion 3a-20250206, issued on 6 February 2025, interpreted that section "as prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from detaining aliens pursuant to immigration detainers."[^9] It names Ellison because he "issued Advisory Opinion 3a-20250206 and is Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer."[^10] The complaint acknowledges that the Attorney General's Office treats the opinion as non-binding, but alleges that "it is de facto binding" in practice.[^9] The statutes challenged are Minn. Stat. § 171.12, subd. 7b(e) and subd. 11, and § 168.327, subd. 6.[^3] The complaint's sources differ on the scope of the subd. 11 challenge. The introductory list cites subdivision 11(a)–(e), while the section on the challenged provisions cites only paragraphs (c) and (d).[^11] As quoted in the complaint, subd. 11(d) provides that the commissioner or a driver's license agent "must not share or disseminate any data on individuals who have applied for or been issued a noncompliant driver’s license or identification card to any federal government entity that primarily enforces immigration law, except pursuant to a valid search warrant." The exception extends to court orders issued by a state or federal judge.[^11] The complaint describes § 168.327, subd. 6 as requiring data subscribers to commission annual independent audits that include compliance with the § 171.12 certification.[^11] ### City of Minneapolis The challenged provisions are Minneapolis Code, Title 2, Chapter 19.30(a)(1) and (a)(3), and 19.60(d).[^3] The complaint quotes the chapter's statement of purpose: "This chapter clarifies the communication and enforcement relationship between the city and the United States Department of Homeland Security." Section 19.60(d) restricts disclosure of victims' personal information gathered through U- and T-visa certification requests. It makes an exception for disclosure permitted under the [[Minnesota Government Data Practices Act]].[^12] ### City of St. Paul The challenged provisions are St. Paul Code, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44, sections 44.02(a)(2), 44.03(a)(1) and (a)(3), and 44.06(d). The chapter is titled *Employee Authority in Immigration Matters*.[^13] Section 44.02(a)(2), as quoted, bars maintaining or recording immigration-status information "except as otherwise specifically required by law."[^13] ### Hennepin County Administrative Directive 21-02 is dated 9 June 2021, and the complaint states that Witt issued it.[^14] As quoted, it provides that the Sheriff's Office "will not hold individuals in custody at the Adult Detention Center when the only documentation for that individual to be held in custody is a [DHS/ICE] Immigration Detainer." It further provides that "ICE will not be notified of the admittance or release of any individual based on any of these detainers."[^14] ## Allegations The complaint rests on the Supremacy Clause and on several federal statutes. For information sharing, it relies on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. It invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) for written agreements with state and local officers, and 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d) for the 48-hour detainer hold.[^15] The complaint alleges that the challenged provisions "single out federal immigration authorities for unique restrictions." It further alleges that they "discriminate impermissibly against the federal government and violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine."[^15] It also alleges that the laws impede communication between federal and local law enforcement. It asks the court to end what it calls Minnesota's and its localities' "scheme to openly flout federal law."[^16] The complaint offers the following figures and allegations about effects: - Since fiscal year 2024, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations issued 2,988 detainers and made 1,522 at-large arrests in the St. Paul Area of Responsibility. These figures are stated as of 15 July 2025.[^17] - "Since the Attorney General issued the Opinion, most counties have refused to honor ICE detainers."[^17] - The [[Minnesota State Patrol]], which the complaint says formerly provided DWI reports to ERO St. Paul, has stopped doing so.[^17] - ICE queries to the Driver and Vehicle Services system return the message that "information may not be shared under Minnesota State Statute 171.12 Subd. 11(d)."[^17] ## Procedural history - **29 September 2025:** The complaint was filed, and summonses were issued the next day. The case was initially assigned to Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan and referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.[^18] - **24–25 November 2025:** Judge Bryan, Judge [[Katherine M. Menendez]] and Judge [[Jerry W. Blackwell]] each recused in turn. The case was then reassigned to Judge Tostrud.[^19] - **4 December 2025:** The magistrate judge denied a joint stipulation to extend response deadlines because the parties "have provided no reason beyond their mutual agreement." On 8 December 2025, an order on a renewed stipulation set answers due on 7 January 2026.[^20] - **7–29 January 2026:** Four motions to dismiss were filed. The filers were Hennepin County and Witt; St. Paul; the State and Ellison; and Minneapolis.[^21] On 30 January, the court found "good cause to delay the entry of a pretrial scheduling order." It also granted the United States leave to file an oversize consolidated opposition, which was filed on 6 February.[^22] - **6 February 2026:** The court accepted an amicus brief from the United States Conference of Mayors in support of dismissal. The proposed brief was titled *Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae The United States Conference of Mayors and One Hundred and Thirty-Eight Cities, Counties and Elected Officials in Support of the City of Minneapolis's Motion to Dismiss*.[^23] - **2 March 2026:** The motions were heard in a three-hour session, then "moved, argued and taken under advisement." The transcript, filed on 17 March, runs to 136 pages.[^24] - **7 April – 23 June 2026:** The State and Ellison filed three notices of supplemental authority. The United States filed a response on 5 June.[^25] ## Disposition and appeal On 20 July 2026, the court granted the motions to dismiss of Hennepin County and Witt, St. Paul, the State and Ellison, and Minneapolis, and judgment was entered.[^5] The docket entry records only the outcome. It refers the reader to the written opinion, which is not in the record before this article.[^5] The United States filed its notice of appeal on 18 September 2026, and the Eighth Circuit assigned No. 26-2905 on 21 September.[^6] ## Stated purposes and recorded outputs The Justice Department's release stated that the policies are "illegal under federal law." It quoted Bondi as saying the Department "will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement."[^26] The release placed the suit as "the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country." It cited earlier suits involving Boston, New York City, Rochester, New Jersey, Colorado and Los Angeles. It also noted that the mayor of [[Louisville]] revoked that city's policy after the Department threatened legal action.[^7] The district court's recorded output on that claim was dismissal on all four motions, followed by the United States' appeal.[^5] On the defendants' side, the Minneapolis chapter describes its own purpose as one that "clarifies" the city's relationship with the [[Department of Homeland Security]].[^12] The complaint alleges that, since the ordinances were enacted, city police have refused ICE information and perimeter assistance.[^17] These are allegations in a dismissed complaint now on appeal; the record does not establish them as findings.[^5] ## Legislative history in the record The complaint states that the § 171.12 certification requirement first appeared at paragraph (d) of House File 3436 (2023). It "subsequently shifted to paragraph (e)" through 2024 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 104, leaving § 168.327's cross-reference pointing to paragraph (d).[^11] The record before this article does not give the votes, the enacting governor, or the party alignment for the statutes or ordinances. It names Witt as the issuer of Directive 21-02 and Ellison as the issuer of the 2025 opinion.[^10] ## See also - [[United States Department of Justice]] - [[Department of Homeland Security]] - [[Minnesota Attorney General]] - [[Hennepin County Sheriff]] - [[Minnesota Government Data Practices Act]] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:25-cv-03798, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), caption and ¶¶ 14–19 — the defendants and their official capacities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^2]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States v. State of Minnesota, No. 0:25-cv-03798, docket* (CourtListener/RECAP), case header — nature of suit, cause, jurisdiction type, assigned and referred judges, and the filing and termination dates. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^3]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 4–5 — the relief sought and the list of challenged provisions. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies*, press release 25-962 (29 Sept. 2025) — the Department's description of the suit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-over-sanctuary-policies [^5]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 76–77 (20 July 2026) — the opinion and order granting all four motions to dismiss, and the judgment. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^6]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 78–84 (18–24 Sept. 2026) — the notice of appeal, transmittal, and USCA Case Number 26-2905. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^7]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies*, press release 25-962 (29 Sept. 2025) — the first-day instruction, the 5 August 2025 list, the series of suits, and Louisville. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-over-sanctuary-policies [^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶ 3 — the Bondi letter of 13 August 2025 and the Walz letter of 19 August 2025. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^9]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 51–54 — Article I, section 10 and Advisory Opinion 3a-20250206. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^10]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 18–19 — Ellison's issuance of the opinion and Witt's issuance of Directive 21-02. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^11]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 55–59 and n. 4 — the text of the state statutes and the HF 3436 / 2024 Ch. 104 history. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^12]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 60–65 and n. 5 — the Minneapolis Chapter 19 provisions. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^13]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 66–70 — the St. Paul Chapter 44 provisions. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^14]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶ 71 — the text of Hennepin County Sheriff's Administrative Directive 21-02 (9 June 2021). https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^15]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 26–50 — the federal statutes relied on and the intergovernmental-immunity allegation. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^16]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 8–9 — the allegations on communication and the "scheme" language. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^17]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, *Complaint*, Doc. 1 (29 Sept. 2025), ¶¶ 73–85 — the detainer and arrest counts, the county detainer allegation, the State Patrol allegation, the DVS message, and the city police allegations. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1415681/dl [^18]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 1–5 (29–30 Sept. 2025) — the complaint, summonses, and initial assignment. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^19]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 7–9 (24–25 Nov. 2025) — the three orders of recusal. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^20]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 10–15 (3–8 Dec. 2025) — the stipulations, the denial, and the answer deadlines. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^21]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 17, 23, 29, 36 (7–29 Jan. 2026) — the four motions to dismiss. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^22]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 42–45, 51 (30 Jan.–6 Feb. 2026) — the scheduling order, leave to file oversize, and the opposition. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^23]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 46–47, 53 (5–6 Feb. 2026) — the amicus motion, brief, and order accepting it. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^24]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 66–68 (2–17 Mar. 2026) — the motion hearing and the transcript. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^25]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *docket, No. 0:25-cv-03798*, entries 70, 72, 74, 75 (7 Apr.–23 June 2026) — the supplemental-authority notices and the response. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71492219/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/ [^26]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies*, press release 25-962 (29 Sept. 2025) — the Department's statements of illegality and Bondi's statement. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-over-sanctuary-policies