Published July 21, 2026 at 8:08 AM ET · Updated July 21, 2026 at 10:11 AM ET
Judge dismisses challenge to Minnesota sanctuary policies
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Minnesota's sanctuary policies. The ruling went against the Trump administration's challenge to the state's refusal to assist ICE.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 hr ago, when Washington Examiner reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from The Gateway Pundit. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Printz v. United States held the federal government may not compel state or local executive officers to administer or enforce a federal program, and Murphy v. NCAA confirmed the bar covers federal prohibitions on state lawmaking, not just orders to act. Minnesota refusing to lend its officers to ICE falls squarely inside that protection. The dismissal tracks the doctrine rather than departing from it.
Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The federal government may not compel state or local executive officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The Brady Act's interim command that county sheriffs (CLEOs) conduct background checks on handgun purchasers — and the companion duty to accept Brady Forms from dealers — is unconstitutional, extending New York's anti-commandeering rule from state legislatures to state executive officers. Congress cannot circumvent the prohibition by conscripting the states' officers directly, regardless of how minimal the burden or how important the federal policy.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 584 U.S. 453 (2018); 138 S. Ct. 1461
Vote: 6-3 on the judgment (7-2 that PASPA's anti-authorization provision is unconstitutional;… · Opinion: Alito
PASPA's provision barring states from 'authorizing' sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering rule, and the licensing bar falls with it; no remaining PASPA provision is severable, so the entire statute fell. Critically for sanctuary law, the Court held there is 'no meaningful difference' between Congress commanding a state legislature to enact a law and prohibiting it from enacting one — anti-commandeering covers federal prohibitions on state lawmaking, not just affirmative orders.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
