Minnesota often at the receiving end of Trump Justice Department’s legal blitz

Challenging transgender protections. Pressuring Minnesota’s secretary of state to hand over voter rolls. And most recently, bringing legal pressure against the Twin Cities’ immigration sanctuary policies.

In the first 10 months of his presidency, Donald Trump has delivered on promises to harness the U.S. Department of Justice to bring a surge of lawsuits against states he views as opponents to his directives — with Minnesota often a target.

Minnesota has responded in the courts, with Attorney General Keith Ellison joining more than 30 lawsuits to block major parts of Trump’s agenda — many in conjunction with other states — from suing over funding freezes to Trump’s tariffs.

The flurry of filings has led both Republicans and Democrats to sharply rebuke one another for what they see as using resources toward politically motivated lawsuits. But it’s also raised questions about which of the Trump administration’s legal maneuverings are posturing, which are part of an effort to test legal boundaries — and which could have a significant impact on the daily lives of Minnesotans.

“A lot of what the Trump administration is trying to do is get states and local governments to back down,” said David Schultz, professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University. “Where we are now is where states like Minnesota are going to try to call the Trump administration’s bluff and go to court.”

On Sept. 29, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, the Twin Cities and the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office over “sanctuary” policies that limit police and jail cooperation with federal immigration agents — considered a flagship issue for Trump.

“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement when the lawsuit was filed.

Supporters say the ordinances keep police focused on enforcing Minnesota law and stopping serious crime instead of taking on federal immigration duties. Opponents say local jurisdictions are violating federal law by not enforcing immigration statutes.

“It’s actual, proactive and deliberate passing of policies and laws that block cooperation between state and locals and ICE,” said David Zimmer, public safety policy fellow at Center of the American Experiment. “They’re singling out one federal law enforcement agency.”

He added: “I think it’s good to have some checks and balances so that the state and local jurisdictions aren’t feeling as though they can just flout the requests of the federal government.”

At the heart of the debate over the Justice Department’s suit is whether the government’s demands to revoke the policies violate the anti-commandeering principle under the 10th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enforce or adopt its laws.

But what was once a clear interpretation of that amendment, says one legal expert, is murkier these days.

The Justice Department brought similar lawsuits in six other states and cities after Bondi published a list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions nationwide. Those places include Boston, New York City, Rochester, N.Y., New Jersey, Colorado and Los Angeles.

In Louisville, Ky., the pressure of legal action resulted in the city’s mayor, Craig Greenberg, reversing sanctuary policy over concerns of losing federal funding.

Minneapolis’ and St. Paul’s mayors have both pledged to fight the matter in court, and Pottratz Acosta said it’s also difficult to say what a remedy might look like if the federal government prevailed in its lawsuit. A win may mean the federal government must send resources to the Twin Cities to help aid with the extra burden of enforcing immigration, she explained.

One Justice Department investigation has already put state policy under intense scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Education recently gave the state 10 days to change its policy allowing transgender athletes to participate in high school girls sports or risk “imminent enforcement action.”

The order came after the U.S. Department of Education determined the state’s bylaw is violating Title IX, the federal law prohibiting gender discrimination. Since the finding, more than 250 school board members statewide urged Minnesota to comply with the finding over fears of losing funds. (A separate group of school board members released a letter last week calling for state and school leaders to affirm transgender athletes’ “right to fully participate in school sports.”)

Minnesota’s decade-old policy is also facing legal pressure from another angle, by metro-area high school softball players. A lawsuit aimed at rescinding the policy is currently pending in U.S. District Court, with both parties working on an appeal over the judge’s decision to not issue a preliminary injunction that would immediately block enforcing Minnesota’s bylaw until the lawsuit sees an outcome.

In late September, Minnesota was hit with another lawsuit by the Justice Department over Secretary of State Steve Simon’s refusal to provide the federal government with a copy of the state’s voter registration list.

The DOJ said it wants the data to assess the state’s compliance with election law, asking for information that includes voters’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

The suit came after months of dispute between the Trump administration and the state over the information. The DOJ sent a letter to Minnesota in July asking to provide the list. Simon’s office said it couldn’t find any legal basis for the request and declined it.

Hamline’s Schultz said federal law generally gives states authority over voting rights and elections. He added it’s also unclear exactly what the Justice Department is alleging and what officials may do with the data.

The Justice Department has also turned its attention to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, launching an investigation in May after the office instituted a policy asking prosecutors to consider racial identity as part of the overall analysis of plea deals and charging decisions. Critics quickly pounced on the memo and pointed to how the directive is unconstitutional by violating the 14th Amendment’s call for equal treatment of citizens.

The Justice Department’s civil rights division said the investigation will determine if the County Attorney’s Office is “engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving persons of rights, privileges or immunities.”

A pattern or practice investigation is the same type of probe initiated in 2021 by the DOJ under then-President Joe Biden following George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police officers. The investigations are typically prompted by “extraordinary circumstances,” such as Floyd’s killing, said Peter Larsen, assistant professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

To succeed with its suit, the U.S. government will need to show the County Attorney’s Office has a systemic trend of discrimination against white people among its cases, Larsen said.

“I think it would be hard to find that. Not to say I know the results of an investigation, who knows? I might be surprised,” Larsen said. “But I think it would be difficult to prove that.”

Larsen said if the Justice Department does find a pattern of discrimination, the office could see further action on behalf of the DOJ — similar to the Justice Department’s intervention in 2023.

Biden’s Justice Department that year found the Minneapolis Police Department routinely engaged in a pattern of racist and abusive behavior, prompting the city to begin negotiating a court-enforceable consent decree to usher in sweeping reforms.

The agreement was quickly inked by both parties in late 2024 to go before a judge for final approval in hopes of making the decree come to pass. Those efforts unraveled in the spring when Trump’s Justice Department attorneys notified the court they would no longer pursue finalizing the consent decree, and U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson signed off on their request to scrap it.

Larsen said similar federal intervention is in the realm of possibility if a judge favors the Justice Department over the County Attorney, but he has doubts it’ll get to that point.