WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Donald Trump has signaled a new legal push against so-called sanctuary cities, as reports indicate the Justice Department is reviewing whether Minnesota officials obstructed federal immigration enforcement.
According to a new report by The Free Press, the Justice Department is investigating whether Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey may have violated federal law by allegedly impeding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the state.
The reported inquiry centers on what the White House described as a “toxic combination of sanctuary policies and anti-ICE rhetoric,” which administration officials claim has created a hostile environment for federal agents and contributed to unrest surrounding recent immigration enforcement actions.
Speaking earlier this week, President Trump said his administration would move to cut off federal funding to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE. “We are not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities,” Trump said, setting a February 1 deadline for compliance.
The investigation represents a growing divide between federal and state officials in Minnesota, with the issue of immigration enforcement at the eye of the storm.
Federal prosecutors are reportedly looking into whether Walz, Frey, and other local leaders unlawfully conspired to impede federal immigration agents as part of broader resistance to the surge of ICE activity in the region.
Sources familiar with the matter say the inquiry could involve subpoenas to Walz and Frey, though it is unclear what specific legal theories the Justice Department is pursuing or whether charges will ultimately be brought.
The probe focuses in part on public statements made by state and local officials about the increased presence of ICE and other federal agents in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where protests have surged in response to the enforcement operations.
Both Walz and Frey have publicly condemned the investigation, framing it as political retaliation rather than a legitimate law enforcement action. Walz accused the Trump administration of “weaponizing the justice system against your opponents,” while Frey described the inquiry as an attempt to intimidate him for defending local law enforcement and residents amid what he characterized as federal overreach.
The dispute comes on the heels of the large-scale operation dubbed Operation Metro Surge, which has deployed thousands of federal agents to the Twin Cities area in recent weeks to target undocumented immigrants and investigate welfare fraud.
The increased presence of federal agents has led to numerous clashes with protestors, some of which have resulted in tragic consequences.
A judge in Minnesota recently issued an order restricting the actions of immigration agents against peaceful demonstrators, barring agents from detaining or using force against individuals who are not engaging in criminal activity.
As of now, the Justice Department has declined to comment publicly on the status of the investigation, and it remains unclear when or if criminal charges might be filed.
Legal-minded commentators note that the dispute hinges on competing constitutional principles: the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the doctrine of anti-commandeering.
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, preventing states and cities from actively interfering with federal officers as they carry out their lawful duties. This means that while state and local governments can decline to cooperate, they are forbidden from actively obstructing federal law enforcement.
On the other hand, under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states and municipalities cannot be forced to carry out or assist with federal immigration enforcement, meaning local officials are not required to detain, arrest, or deport individuals on ICE’s behalf.
Where the situation falls in Minnesota remains to be seen. While so-called sanctuary policies themselves have repeatedly been upheld by federal courts, prosecutors are reportedly examining whether public rhetoric, coordination with activist groups, or specific actions by state and city leaders crossed the line from lawful noncooperation into unlawful obstruction.
Whether Minnesota officials stayed within their constitutional authority or crossed into unlawful obstruction is now at the center of a Justice Department review.
Comments