MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The U.S. Department of Justice is suing the state of Minnesota, its largest cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, along with Hennepin County, over sanctuary immigration policies that allegedly obstruct federal immigration enforcement. This legal action, taken on Monday, claims these policies allow dangerous offenders to evade deportation and seeks to invalidate local laws interfering with immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi asserted that Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by letting illegal immigrants evade the legal process.

The Department of Justice previously targeted other jurisdictions for similar reasons, including Colorado and Chicago. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison defended the state’s practices, emphasizing that they do not prevent federal authorities from collaborating with local law enforcement.

Ellison stated, This baseless lawsuit is just more political retaliation against Minnesota and we will respond in court. He argued that the state conducts lawful practices and does not stop federal authorities from apprehending dangerous criminals.

The Justice Department's lawsuit cites an advisory opinion from February suggesting that officials should not hold individuals for immigration purposes if they would otherwise be released. This opinion has been used by many counties to justify their policies concerning undocumented immigrants.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey voiced strong opposition, saying, Donald Trump has built his career on attacking immigrants... He reaffirmed the city’s commitment to welcoming immigrants and refugees. Additionally, Governor Tim Walz contested the notion that Minnesota qualifies as a sanctuary state, insisting there are no laws against deportation for undocumented individuals.

The controversy continues, as the state maintains its policy limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while the federal government insists these practices endanger public safety. Minnesota is among several states identified as defying federal immigration policies, spotlighting the broader national debate on immigration practices and state versus federal authority.