President Donald Trump has suffered a number of legal defeats at the hands of judges, from having jurists reject his attempts to target political opponents to deeming his tariffs illegal. Now he has endured another setback at the courts, this time over his immigration policies and at the hands of a judge he appointed.
Read more Behind closed doors: Expert predictions on what Trump will do next in escalating war
“JUST IN: A federal judge in Minnesota — Trump appointed chief judge Eric Tostrud — has rejected the administration’s effort to force Minnesota to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration law,” reported Politico’s Kyle Cheney on Monday.
Trump’s Justice Department sued the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Hennepin County and the county’s sheriff by arguing that their implementation of “sanctuary” laws and policies that restrict local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, who was appointed by Trump himself, dismissed the government entire case.
that the government could not prove that it should be able to preempt the Minnesota Constitution because its fundamental demands were too speculative; their accusation of a service-of-process defect against Minneapolis was characterized as a harmless delay; and every other claim was dismissed on their merits. Perhaps most importantly, Tostrud concluded that the government’s argument violated the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which has an anti-commandeering doctrine that protects state sovereignty.
Tostrud’s decision cited ample legal precedent to reach its conclusion. On one occasion, it pointed out that “the Federal Government may not command the States’ officers… to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” On another occasion it noted that “[w]hen questions of federalism are involved, we must distinguish between expectations and requirements.”
Read more Iowa is acting ‘differently’: Expert issues stark warning on GOP’s future in red state
It also rejected Trump’s argument that the local governments have an obligation to help federal officials, quoting precedent that “[r]efusing to help is not the same as impeding” and that “[a]n ICE detainer is a ‘request,’ not an order, for another law enforcement agency [to] hold a particular alien.”
If precedent continues, Trump will likely be furious at Tostrud for ruling against him, as he tends to believe that judges he appointed are supposed to do his bidding.
“He is completely livid over the mail-in ballot ruling,” senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes said in June when the Supreme Court ruled against Trump on the issue of mail-in voting. “And of course, part of this is about the justices who decided to rule against him in this case. Just a reminder — this was the Republican National Committee challenging a Mississippi law that allowed mail-in ballots that came in after Election Day to still be counted.”
Holmes added that “if you look at the justices who voted against Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee, one of them sticks out in particular, and that is Amy Coney Barrett — whom President Trump himself appointed to the bench. Trump has been growing increasingly frustrated. We’ve reported multiple times that behind closed doors he has slammed Amy Coney Barrett, saying that she has not stepped up and has not done basically what he put her in place to do.”
Read more Trump’s economy hasn’t sunk the GOP because the Dems blew it: analysis
