United States v. Minnesota

138 cities, counties, and elected officials are pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to compel the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County to enforce its harmful immigration policies. Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition, which includes the U.S. Conference of Mayors, that shares the defendants’ goals of protecting the well-being of all residents.

This brief was filed in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which aims to force the cities, county, and state to abandon their so-called “sanctuary policies.” In reality, the jurisdictions’ approach is centered on prioritizing the health, safety, and well-being of the community, and not on using local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. The brief explains that the Constitution gives local governments — not the federal government — the authority to make decisions about their communities. 

Relying on the insights of 138 local governments and elected officials, we highlight the real benefits of “sanctuary policies”: 

• They make communities safer by building trust between law enforcement and all residents, so people will report crimes and cooperate with police.
• They strengthen local economies because immigrants play a vital role in the workforce across many industries.
• They support public health by ensuring people can access medical care without fear, protecting community well-being.

We’re urging the court to rule in Minneapolis’s favor and dismiss the case.

In similar challenges, PRP is representing Boston and recently filed briefs in support of four New Jersey cities, and Rochester, New York.

Read the amicus brief.

—

Update:

On July 20, 2026, the district court dismissed the Trump administration’s case against Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County. The court ruled that the federal government can’t compel local governments to enforce federal immigration law, citing the Constitution’s anticommandeering doctrine. It also rejected the federal government’s claim that the local policies regulate or discriminate against it.

Read the opinion.