The DOJ is suing Minnesota over immigration policies. Here's how it could impact the state.

[MUSIC PLAYING] NINA MOINI: Our top story this afternoon. The Department of Justice is suing Minnesota, the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County, the Hennepin County Sheriff, and the attorney general over sanctuary policies or what jurisdictions often call separation ordinances. These policies limit local government and law enforcement's collaboration with ICE.

The federal government says the policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement and are illegal. In response to the lawsuit, both mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul say they are committed to the city's ordinances. Joining me now to explain more is Ana Pottratz Acosta, visiting professor at University of Minnesota Law School and the Binger Center for New Americans. Thanks so much for joining the program again, Ana.

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Of course. Thank you for having me.

NINA MOINI: Always love to have your expertise. Could you start for us by explaining just what a sanctuary policy or a separation ordinance is?

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Yes. And I have to say, first of all, I appreciate you using the term "separation ordinance" or "separation policy," because, really, that's a more accurate way to describe what's going on. So, in brief, or to give the 10,000-foot level view of what this issue is, sanctuary policies, as they're known, or a separation policy or separation ordinance refers to state or local governments-- so it could be at the state level, the county level or the municipal level, as is the case in Minneapolis and St. Paul-- of limiting actions that it will take in order to cooperate or provide information that's not required to federal authorities for immigration enforcement purposes.

And the thing to understand is that this refers to things that are more passive in nature, in that they're not going to redirect state and local resources toward enforcement of federal immigration law. The position of state and local governments is we have enough on our plate. We don't need extra work. It's the federal government's job to enforce federal immigration law.

Additionally, state, and local governments, and I can tell you, full stop, do not get in the way of enforcement of immigration law. Where necessary and where there's a judicial warrant that's produced, they do cooperate with federal immigration agents. And they also don't stop federal immigration enforcement actions happening within their jurisdiction. It's just that they won't necessarily direct additional resources to help the federal government.

NINA MOINI: And from the perspective of a person who may be undocumented, Ana, can you talk about why the sanctuary policies are used?

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Sure. So the main policy reason behind having a sanctuary policy, or a separation ordinance, or a separation policy limiting that cooperation really has to do with effective community policing policies. So as a matter of just kind of day-to-day life, immigrants who live in our communities, they, at some point or another, may need to call upon local authorities if they are a victim of a crime, or let's say their house is on fire and they need to call the fire department.

You don't want to run into a situation where, if somebody needs the help of local authorities, they will be afraid to reach out to those local authorities and access that help due to concerns that it could lead to immigration enforcement against them. So because state and local governments want to promote effective community policing policies, that's why they have a lot of these separation policies in place in order to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, particularly for individuals who are victims of a crime or who need assistance from state and local governments.

NINA MOINI: Yeah. And these types of policies have been in place for a long time, right? But the DOJ says that they're illegal now. Can you tell us why that is?

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Yes. And I've had a chance to review the DOJ complaint against the state of Minnesota, along with the cities of Minneapolis, and St. Paul, and Hennepin County. And there are several sections of Minnesota statute that they're referring to.

So, with respect to Minnesota, it looks like they're going after provisions in Minnesota statute that are connected to the driver's license for all bill that was passed during the 2023 legislative session that ensures data privacy protection of driver's license information for individuals who have non-REAL ID compliant state driver's licenses in Minnesota. And it also cross-references sections of the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

And the thing to understand, too, is that, in addition to immigration status, as part of the Driver's License For All bill being private data that's protected, there are also a number of other pieces of individual information that may be provided to the state government. And you and I probably provide this information, for example, when we apply for our driver's license or if we file our state or local tax return or register to vote. And it's a good thing that Minnesota has the Data Practices Act to keep this data private.

So it's really a conflict between state and federal law with respect to data privacy. The other thing, too, that they're going after the state of Minnesota, along with Hennepin County, has to do with something called immigration detainers, which is an administrative order or administrative warrant that's issued by ICE when somebody is in criminal custody-- so they've been arrested and then post bail.

And, normally, they would be free to leave. But under these ICE detainer policies, ICE is asking that they be held until they can be arrested by an ICE agent and placed into immigration detention. And there are a number of policy reasons as well in terms of why the counties or the state of Minnesota may discourage honoring ICE detainers.

NINA MOINI: So, with all that in mind, there are legal proceedings going on. There are counter lawsuits going on. As with all of these other issues that we've talked about throughout the span of this first year of the administration, what are you thinking is the impact on day-to-day people? Because it's hard to when a policy changes, versus it's being talked about in the courts, versus the president has issued an executive order, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a policy has changed. So how do you see this impacting everyday people, perhaps people who are undocumented?

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Well, I think the real danger here, both with the federal government going after state and local jurisdictions that have these separation policies or sanctuary policies, is that it is going to increase the fear of people, both who are undocumented, as well as legal immigrants and even US citizens that fit a certain profile, particularly after the Supreme Court decision in Vasquez Perdomo, where there was an order for a stay that was lifted that basically allows ICE agents to conduct arrests or immigration enforcement actions merely based on reasonable suspicion that somebody is not lawfully present in the United States. And there are a lot of concerns about racial profiling following that Supreme Court decision.

But I think, more than anything for everyday people, the concern is that people are going to be afraid to reach out to local law enforcement or local services when they need assistance. And for policy reasons, that can be very harmful to a lot of local jurisdictions in Minnesota and around the country.

NINA MOINI: It's interesting, too, just narrowing in on something you mentioned, that these are some state laws as well. So Minnesota is also being sued in this case, whereas we've seen a lot of cities in the past being sued over being sanctuary cities. What do you think is happening with the state of Minnesota right now? Just what are your reflections on this state and just how the laws are going to be interpreted by the Trump administration?

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Well, again, based on some of the actions by the Supreme Court over the last few months, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court, both at the district court level, and then, I imagine, this issue is probably going to eventually reach the Supreme Court. The other thing, too, that's really interesting is that the Department of Justice complaint does reference a response letter that was sent by Governor Walz to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

And if you read the text of that letter, it's very interesting because it does reiterate a lot of the points that I've been making that this is really about Minnesota having its own laws related to data privacy and also ensuring compliance with its laws and policies with respect to detaining individuals who have posted bail, and not detaining them longer than the state of Minnesota is legally entitled to detain them, and making clear that this is an issue of Minnesota needs to take care of enforcing Minnesota's law.

And if the federal government wants to enforce federal law, that's their business. But Minnesota doesn't want to get in the middle of that. They won't get in the way of the federal government enforcing the law, but they're not going to take additional steps to assist them when they don't have to, in light of the fact that Minnesota and state and local cities and counties in Minnesota have plenty on their plate without taking on additional work that's really within the realm of the federal government.

NINA MOINI: That interaction between state, and local, and federal laws is always fascinating. Ana, thanks for coming by the show again. Always appreciate your time.

ANA POTTRATZ ACOSTA: Of course. Thank you.

NINA MOINI: Ana Pottratz Acosta is a visiting professor at University of Minnesota Law School and the Binger Center for New Americans.