The Department of Justice has sued the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, alleging that municipal ordinances and practices meant to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities unlawfully interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The litigation, announced late Tuesday and reported by CBS News, escalates a long-running national dispute over the role of local governments in immigration policy and landed squarely on the municipal leaders of the Twin Cities.

Both mayors immediately defended their municipalities’ policies. In statements to CBS News, the mayors framed the measures as public-safety tools designed to build trust between immigrant communities and local government. They argued that prohibiting city employees from assisting in federal immigration investigations and limiting the honoring of civil immigration detainer requests are essential to encourage victims and witnesses to come forward without fear of deportation. "Our priority remains the safety and well‑being of all residents," one mayor said, urging that public-safety outcomes—not federal immigration enforcement—should guide local policing decisions.

The Justice Department’s complaint alleges those same policies obstruct federal duties and exceed municipal authority. According to the filing, the cities’ restrictions impede federal officers’ ability to identify and remove individuals who may be subject to removal proceedings. DOJ is seeking injunctive relief to compel changes to city practices, and the suit signals the department’s willingness to litigate against sanctuary-style policies that some localities adopted over the past decade.

Legal scholars say the case will probe enduring tensions of federalism and home‑rule. "At stake is how much latitude municipalities retain to set local policing priorities when they touch on federal prerogatives," said a constitutional law scholar not involved in the case. Court rulings could hinge on statutory interpretation, the Supremacy Clause, and precedent about the degree to which the federal government can compel or restrict local cooperation.

The lawsuit carries practical implications for municipal operations. Legal battles are costly, and compliance demands—such as changes to information‑sharing protocols, training, and record-keeping—could strain city budgets already facing competing priorities. There is also potential political fallout. Mayors in heavily immigrant precincted cities risk galvanizing both supporters who see the actions as defending vulnerable residents and opponents who view cooperation with federal enforcement as integral to public safety. Political strategists note the timing may influence turnout and campaign narratives ahead of municipal and statewide elections.

Community groups and civil-rights organizations said they are preparing to oppose the DOJ’s action through legal support and public demonstrations. Immigrant advocates contend that increased collaboration with federal immigration authorities would deter reporting of crime and undermine cooperative policing. Business and civic leaders, meanwhile, warn that the controversy could affect labor markets and local economies that rely on immigrant workers.

The litigation is expected to move quickly through federal court. Both cities plan to mount vigorous defenses, according to their statements, and legal experts predict appeals will be likely given the constitutional questions involved. As the case unfolds, it will test the balance of power between federal immigration priorities and municipal discretion—and shape how the Twin Cities reconcile community trust with national enforcement imperatives.