A federal judge nominated by President Trump sided against the administration in a Minnesota sanctuary-law dispute, ruling the state's policies do not violate the Constitution, adding to a growing list of courtroom setbacks for the White House.

U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit that sought to strike down Minnesota's sanctuary laws, finding they do not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause. The ruling, issued Monday, rejected the administration's request to declare the laws unconstitutional and block their enforcement. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Tostrud, a Trump nominee, wrote in his filing that the challenged provisions pass constitutional muster. The administration had argued that Minnesota's sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement and must yield to federal authority under the Supremacy Clause, the constitutional principle that federal law overrides conflicting state law.

Tostrud found no evidence Minnesota singled out the federal government

In his written ruling, the judge addressed the core of the administration's argument head-on. He concluded that the state's laws treat federal authorities the same way they treat everyone else, and that the administration failed to show otherwise.

Tostrud wrote:

"The challenged provisions do not single the federal government out for less favorable treatment, at least not in any sense that shows an intergovernmental immunity violation."

That language matters. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine bars states from discriminating against the federal government or its operations. Tostrud's ruling says Minnesota's sanctuary policies simply do not cross that line, a straightforward rejection of the legal theory the administration chose to press.

The dismissal is the latest in a string of federal court rulings that have gone against the Trump administration on policy fronts ranging from immigration to cultural disputes. Trump himself has called the court system "rigged" after a series of unfavorable decisions earlier this year.

Minnesota became a flashpoint for federal immigration enforcement this year

The lawsuit did not arise in a vacuum. Minnesota has been at the center of some of the most contentious federal immigration actions of 2026. At one point earlier this year, more than 3,000 federal immigration personnel were deployed in the state, a massive show of force that drew national attention.

In January, two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, were killed in Minneapolis by federal immigration authorities. The circumstances surrounding those deaths remain largely unexplained in public filings. That same month, a Mexican citizen identified only as Fernando was taken by the Department of Homeland Security to a detention facility in Texas, a transfer that violated a court order.

Fernando was released from the Texas facility in late January without his belongings. Tostrud later ordered the federal government to pay for Fernando's return flight to Minnesota.

By February, Tostrud had held DHS in civil contempt for violating the court order tied to Fernando's transfer. The judge noted at the time that federal officials had yet to properly explain their actions, a pointed rebuke from a jurist the president himself had elevated to the bench.

The contempt finding fits a broader pattern of courts pushing back on executive action. In a separate case, a divided appeals court blocked Trump's effort to remove trans-identified troops, with the dissent warning that judges were overstepping their own authority.

ICE shootings in Texas and Maine add pressure to the legal landscape

The Minnesota ruling lands during a period of heightened scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement nationwide. ICE officers have fatally shot multiple people in recent weeks, with two notable incidents in Texas and Maine drawing particular attention. The details of those shootings were not elaborated on in the court filing, but they form part of the backdrop against which states like Minnesota have defended their sanctuary policies.

Sanctuary laws generally limit how much state and local law enforcement cooperates with federal immigration agents, for example, by restricting the sharing of information about individuals' immigration status or barring local jails from holding people solely on federal immigration detainers. Supporters say these laws build trust between immigrant communities and local police. Critics, including the Trump administration, argue they shield illegal immigrants from lawful removal and undermine public safety.

The administration's decision to challenge Minnesota's laws in court reflected a broader strategy of using the Supremacy Clause to force blue states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That strategy took a significant hit with Tostrud's dismissal.

Not every recent court battle has gone against the administration. The Supreme Court backed Trump on Temporary Protected Status in two 6-3 rulings, handing the White House a clear win on immigration authority at the highest level. But in the lower courts, the record has been far more mixed.

A Trump appointee's independence complicates the political narrative

The fact that Tostrud was nominated by Trump adds an uncomfortable wrinkle for anyone inclined to dismiss the ruling as partisan overreach. This is not an Obama appointee or a Biden pick looking for reasons to obstruct the administration's immigration agenda. Tostrud is the president's own selection for the federal bench.

That does not make the ruling correct as a matter of law. The administration may well appeal, and a higher court could see the Supremacy Clause question differently. But it does make the reflexive "activist judge" complaint harder to sustain.

The broader question the ruling leaves unanswered is whether the federal government has any viable legal path to force sanctuary states into cooperation, or whether enforcement will have to rely entirely on federal personnel operating independently of state and local authorities. With more than 3,000 federal agents already deployed to Minnesota at one point this year, the operational costs of going it alone are not theoretical.

Meanwhile, the administration's track record before Tostrud specifically has been rough. The contempt finding over Fernando's transfer, the order to compensate the detainee, and now the outright dismissal of the sanctuary-law challenge paint a picture of a federal government that has struggled to follow the rules even while asking a court to impose new ones on a state. Courts tend to notice that kind of contradiction, and a recent D.C. Circuit ruling against the administration on an unrelated matter suggests Tostrud is not alone in his willingness to rule on the merits regardless of who made the appointment.

If the administration wants to win the sanctuary-law fight, it will need a stronger legal argument, and a cleaner record of following the court orders already on the books.