In this context, “sanctuary” mainly means Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and many Minnesota officials limit how local employees help with civil immigration enforcement. Key practical limits include:
• Minneapolis “Separation Ordinance” (Title 2, Ch. 19, updated Dec. 11, 2025): – City employees, including police and firefighters, do not enforce federal civil immigration law and cannot ask about immigration status or documentation unless required by law. – Police and firefighters focus on safety, not status; residents can access city services and report crimes without being asked about immigration status. – Recent amendments ban federal immigration enforcement from using city parking lots/ramps for operations, require staff training, and add reporting requirements on contact with ICE.
• Minneapolis policy statements: The city explicitly says it does not participate in federal civil immigration enforcement and follows the separation ordinance; Mayor Jacob Frey has publicly said Minneapolis will not cooperate with ICE and is a “safe haven” for undocumented immigrants.
• Saint Paul “separation ordinance” / policy: Saint Paul and its police department state they “will not cooperate with or facilitate enforcement actions, or ask for immigration documentation or status.” The White House article quotes Council Vice President Hwa Jeong Kim saying SPPD “cannot and does not cooperate with ICE,” reflecting that local officers enforce only local/state law, not federal immigration law.
• State‑level stance: Attorney General Keith Ellison and Gov. Tim Walz have both said Minnesota law enforcement should not be used to enforce federal immigration laws and that there is no legal requirement for local agencies to honor ICE detainer “requests.”
Together, these policies and statements are what the White House article labels Minnesota’s “sanctuary” defiance.
ICE’s authority in cities like Minneapolis comes from federal immigration law; local police are separate unless they choose to help or have a specific agreement.
• ICE powers: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (Immigration and Nationality Act § 287), immigration officers may: – Interrogate non‑citizens believed to be removable. – Arrest non‑citizens without a warrant in certain circumstances (e.g., if they are likely to escape and are believed to be removable), and – Execute immigration warrants and detain people pending removal proceedings.
• Detainers: ICE can issue “immigration detainers” asking local jails to hold someone longer so ICE can pick them up, but federal regulations and courts describe these as requests, not commands; local agencies generally are not legally required to honor them.
• Interaction with local police: – Local police enforce state and local criminal laws, not federal civil immigration law, unless they enter a voluntary agreement under INA § 287(g) that delegates some federal authority—Minnesota and the Twin Cities do not have such agreements. – Cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul have policies saying their police do not ask about immigration status and do not participate in federal civil immigration enforcement, though police may still interact with federal agents in joint operations on crimes like drugs or human trafficking.
So ICE can operate directly in Minneapolis or Saint Paul under federal law, but local police are not obligated to help with civil immigration enforcement and, by policy, generally do not.
The White House article uses “enhanced enforcement operations” to refer to stepped‑up federal immigration actions in Minnesota in response to state and local non‑cooperation, but it does not spell out operational details.
Public reporting around the same time describes:
• A major ICE “surge” in Minnesota and the Twin Cities, with DHS sending hundreds to thousands of additional ICE agents to conduct large‑scale arrest operations in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Local coverage has called this the “largest ever” ICE operation in Minnesota and noted protests and public safety preparations in response.
• Minnesota and the Twin Cities joining or supporting litigation against the Trump administration over this deployment, and federal officials framing the surge as a response to “sanctuary” policies that, in their view, obstruct immigration enforcement.
However, beyond these general descriptions—extra ICE personnel, large arrest sweeps, and more visible operations—there is no single, detailed public order that fully outlines all tactics or precise targets of the “enhanced enforcement operations.”
The federal government’s power to cut funds over immigration cooperation is limited and heavily litigated:
• Supreme Court baseline (South Dakota v. Dole; NFIB v. Sebelius): Congress can attach conditions to federal grants, but they must be: – Clearly stated, – Related to the federal interest in the program, – Not “coercive” (can’t effectively hold a gun to the state’s head).
• Trump‑era attempts: Earlier efforts to strip “sanctuary cities” of broad federal funding by executive order were largely blocked by federal courts (e.g., County of Santa Clara v. Trump; City & County of San Francisco v. Trump), which held that the president cannot unilaterally impose new funding conditions that Congress didn’t authorize.
• Grant‑specific fights: Courts have also limited Justice Department attempts to condition Byrne JAG public‑safety grants on immigration cooperation, finding DOJ exceeded what Congress allowed in the statute.
Applied here, the administration can:
• Try to condition certain future grants on specific, congressionally‑authorized immigration‑related requirements, and • Use litigation (like the DOJ lawsuit against Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul) to challenge local laws as preempted.
But it likely cannot legally cut off broad categories of existing federal funds to Minnesota or its cities just because they refuse to assist with civil immigration enforcement, unless Congress clearly authorizes those conditions and they meet Supreme Court limits.
Attorney General Keith Ellison’s core concern is that honoring immigration detainers without proper legal authority exposes Minnesota agencies to serious constitutional and civil‑liability risks.
In his Feb. 6, 2025 formal opinion, Ellison’s office concluded:
• Minnesota law prohibits state and local law enforcement from holding someone in custody based solely on an ICE detainer if the person would otherwise be released.
• ICE detainers are, under federal regulations and case law, requests, not commands, so local agencies are not required to comply.
• If a jail keeps a person locked up past their lawful release time on just a detainer (without a judicial warrant or independent state‑law basis), that can amount to an unlawful arrest or seizure, violating the Fourth Amendment and state law.
• As a result, Minnesota law enforcement agencies that enforce immigration detainers “risk significant civil liability” for wrongful detention—meaning they could be sued and have to pay damages.
These legal and civil‑rights risks are what Ellison is referring to when he warns about “significant civil liability” connected to immigration detainers.
Twin Cities officials have consistently described their approach as separating local public safety from federal civil immigration enforcement, and they have built that into ordinances and day‑to‑day practice.
• Minneapolis (mayor, council, police chief): – Mayor Jacob Frey has told undocumented residents “we will stand up for you,” called Minneapolis a “safe haven,” and said, “As for cooperation with ICE, the answer is no” and “we do not enforce federal immigration law because that’s not our job.” – The Minneapolis Separation Ordinance and city policy state: city employees do not enforce federal civil immigration laws and cannot ask about immigration status unless required by law; police and firefighters focus on safety, not status. – Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara says the department does not participate in immigration enforcement, warning that any such role would have a “chilling effect” on bias‑free, community‑oriented policing by making immigrants afraid to call 911 or cooperate with investigations. – The ordinance was strengthened in Dec. 2025 to add training, reporting requirements, and restrictions on ICE using city facilities for operations.
• Saint Paul (mayor, council, police): – Saint Paul highlights that it is a “safe, welcoming and inclusive” city and explicitly states: “The City of Saint Paul and our Saint Paul Police Department will not cooperate with or facilitate enforcement actions, or ask for immigration documentation or status.” – The White House article quotes City Council Vice President Hwa Jeong Kim saying the city’s separation ordinance means local officers enforce only local laws and that SPPD “cannot and does not cooperate with ICE.”
Implementation in practice:
• Officers do not inquire about immigration status during routine interactions, stops, or when people seek services. • Local agencies generally do not honor ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant or independent legal basis, consistent with the AG’s opinion. • Police may still be present near federal operations if there are immediate safety or crowd‑control issues, but they state their role is to keep the peace—not to help make immigration arrests.
These policies and practices are what the Trump White House characterizes as “sanctuary” behavior by Minneapolis and Saint Paul.