22 State Attorneys General Challenge Federal ‘Coercion’ of Minnesota

Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis ICU nurse, on a city street on January 24. That same day, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz demanding that Minnesota surrender sensitive Medicaid and food assistance records on thousands of residents, dismantle local public safety policies, and hand over complete voter rolls—including Social Security numbers and driver’s license information on millions of Minnesotans.

The implicit threat: comply, or the roughly 3,000 federal immigration agents currently deployed to the Twin Cities—more officers than Minneapolis and Saint Paul employ combined—will stay indefinitely.

By January 29, attorneys general from New York to Arizona had signed onto a response. “The federal government is asking us to accept a belated justification for its unlawful actions in Minnesota,” New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote. “We refuse to be intimidated by these threats, and we reject their unlawful demands that infringe on Minnesota’s fundamental sovereignty.”

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, operating in a traditionally Republican stronghold, emphasized that “Arizonan’s data is not up for grabs.” The coalition spans Michigan, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The underlying question is whether Washington can deploy thousands of armed agents to a state as leverage to extract policy concessions on matters that have traditionally belonged to states, and whether courts will stop it.

What the Federal Government Demanded

Bondi’s letter made three specific demands, each constitutionally fraught in different ways.

First: complete access to Minnesota’s Medicaid and SNAP databases. These aren’t public records. Medicaid files contain deeply personal health information on millions of vulnerable Minnesotans—what conditions they’re being treated for, what medications they take, which doctors they see. SNAP records include financial information on low-income families, many of them families where some members are citizens and others aren’t.

Washington hasn’t clearly articulated its legal authority to demand this data. Courts have already blocked similar SNAP data demands in other states as violating the Privacy Act, a federal law that protects personal information. The Department of Agriculture has threatened to withhold SNAP benefits themselves if states refuse—holding food assistance hostage to force data surrender.

Second: Minnesota must abandon its “sanctuary” policies. Minneapolis has a “Separation Ordinance” that prohibits city police from assisting federal enforcement absent specific judicial warrants. The policy doesn’t prevent federal enforcement. It reflects a decision by elected city officials that Minneapolis police resources are better spent on violent crime than helping ICE with deportations.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated: “The job of our police is to keep people safe, not enforce fed immigration laws.” He’s pointed to evidence that undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than native-born citizens.

Minnesota’s government already cooperates extensively with federal enforcement. The Department of Corrections notifies ICE weeks in advance when individuals will be released from custody. Commissioner Paul Schnell has stated that “there is not a single documented case of the department’s releasing someone from state prison without offering to ensure a smooth transfer of custody” to federal authorities. When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Governor Walz “refuses to allow local and state law enforcement to cooperate with ICE,” fact-checkers found the statement inaccurate.

Third: complete voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and home addresses. Judges in California and Oregon dismissed DOJ lawsuits seeking unredacted voter data, finding the demands “unprecedented and illegal.” Democratic senators released a letter characterizing the Minnesota voter data demand as “apparent ransom.”

Bondi’s letter arrived on January 24, the day agents killed Alex Pretti. Multiple videos show that Pretti had been disarmed by a law enforcement officer before federal agents shot him—contradicting initial federal claims that he posed a threat. The letter came two weeks after agents killed another Minneapolis resident, Renee Good, on January 7, in circumstances her family continues to dispute.

Sending demands for policy capitulation in the immediate aftermath of agents killing two Minneapolis residents looks less like law enforcement and more like deliberate intimidation.

The Constitutional Problem: Coercion Through Armed Deployment

The Supreme Court has established clear limits on federal power to compel compliance from states. The legal rule articulated by Justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States holds that “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers” to administer federal programs.

Washington can’t directly order officials to enforce federal law. It also can’t threaten to cut off money unless states comply—at least not beyond certain limits. In the 2012 Affordable Care Act case, seven of nine Supreme Court justices concluded that threatening to withhold Medicaid funding equal to ten percent of a state’s budget constituted unconstitutional pressure. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that such threats amounted to holding “a gun to the head” of governments.

What’s happening in Minnesota may be worse. Washington hasn’t threatened to withhold funding. It’s deployed approximately 3,000 armed agents—roughly ten percent of ICE’s entire workforce—to conduct what Homeland Security calls “Operation Metro Surge,” the largest enforcement operation in American history.

Minnesota has about 130,000 undocumented immigrants, representing 2.2 percent of the state’s population—substantially below the national average. States like California, Florida, and Texas have undocumented populations exceeding five percent. The deployment is way more than needed for the actual problem in Minnesota.

Border Czar Tom Homan has been explicit about the linkage. He’s stated that the government will not substantially reduce its deployment until officials agree to expand cooperation with enforcement. “When we have these agreements, it takes less law enforcement agents to do the job. They’re here to help us, and the draw down will come soon.”

That’s the definition of coercion: comply with our policy demands, or the armed presence continues.

As constitutional law scholars at Lawfare have noted, “The direct use of force is even more blatantly coercive than illegally withholding federal grants. If the federal government cannot coerce states by enacting commandeering laws and imposing grant conditions, surely it cannot do so at the literal point of a gun.”

Why Twenty-Two States Joined Minnesota’s Fight

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul stated: “It’s totally unacceptable for the federal government to use the deployment of federal agents to try to extract these concessions. Minnesota is a State in the Union. It shouldn’t be treated as a ‘theater’ for an occupying force from the federal government.”

If Washington succeeds in coercing Minnesota through massive law enforcement deployment, the tactic becomes available for any policy dispute. A future Democratic administration could deploy thousands of armed agents to Montana or Missouri until those states dropped their “gun sanctuary” policies that restrict cooperation with firearms enforcement. The principle cuts both ways.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones emphasized the broader implications for community policing: “Local law enforcement officials work for decades to build trust and uplift the communities they serve. The continued use of these tactics threatens to undo years of diligent community policing and trust building within all our communities, not just Minnesota.”

The coalition’s response letter accused the Department of Justice of attempting to achieve through coercion what it couldn’t accomplish through courts. The DOJ has sued twenty-four states demanding voter registration files. Courts have dismissed the cases in California and Oregon, finding the legal arguments didn’t hold up. The Department of Agriculture has demanded five years of personally identifiable SNAP data from states; courts have blocked those demands as violating the Privacy Act.

Having lost in court, Washington is trying a different approach: overwhelming physical presence as leverage.

Where the Litigation Stands

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit on January 12, challenging Operation Metro Surge on First Amendment (retaliation for political positions), Tenth Amendment (the part of the Constitution that says states keep powers not given to the federal government), Equal Sovereignty (the principle that all states should be treated equally), and Administrative Procedure Act (rules about how federal agencies have to act) grounds.

Judge Katherine Menendez denied Minnesota’s request for a temporary court order to stop the operation on January 31. Judge Menendez wrote that “There’s strong evidence that Operation Metro Surge has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans.” She acknowledged evidence of racial profiling, excessive force, and harmful effects on schools, businesses, and emergency response systems.

The judge concluded she was “particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge” and found that the court couldn’t determine exactly when actions cross the line into being unconstitutional.

Attorney General Ellison has signaled the fight will continue. “This case is in its infancy and there is much legal road in front of us.” The case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, where autonomy is controlled by justices who have previously recognized broad protections for states.

Two Deaths and Their Constitutional Consequences

On January 7, agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident. On January 24, agents shot and killed Alex Pretti as he tried to help a woman who’d been pepper-sprayed. Multiple citizen videos show Pretti had been disarmed before he was shot.

The fatal shootings transformed Operation Metro Surge into a question about accountability when agents kill civilians. The questions about whether states can prosecute federal agents for violations of law remain unresolved when authorities refuse to cooperate.

House Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for what they characterize as a pattern of escalating force and lethal violence. Members of Congress from both parties have expressed concern about the tactics being employed.

When thousands of armed agents operate over local objections, people get hurt. When those agents aren’t accountable to local authorities, the injuries and deaths occur without meaningful oversight.

What Could Happen Next

Border Czar Homan has indicated officials are open to negotiations, particularly if Minnesota expands cooperation with enforcement. He’s announced some reduction in presence, though the details remain unclear.

Minnesota could potentially find middle ground on cooperation while resisting data demands and policy mandates. Many county jails throughout the state already cooperate with ICE. Some sheriffs’ offices have signed formal agreements (called 287(g) agreements, which let local police enforce federal immigration law). The question is whether negotiations can occur without Minnesota surrendering the principles at stake.

If courts uphold Operation Metro Surge and the associated demands, the decision would dramatically expand federal power to coerce compliance through law enforcement deployment. Any future administration could use the precedent to pressure states on any policy disagreement.

If courts instead rule that such actions violate the division of power between federal and state governments, the decision would reinforce protections for sovereignty and limit Washington’s ability to weaponize law enforcement against governments.

The twenty-two-state coalition signals that officials across the political spectrum view this as a threat to foundational principles. Minnesota presents “a compelling 10th Amendment case” that raises legal questions courts haven’t clearly answered before.

Whether courts share this concern will likely define the scope of power and sovereignty for years to come. The outcome will have implications for enforcement, data privacy, and the fundamental relationship between governments at different levels.

For now, Minnesota continues its legal fight. The twenty-two states stand with it. The question remains: can Washington deploy thousands of armed agents as leverage to extract policy concessions, or does the Tenth Amendment mean something?

The answer matters for every state, regardless of which party controls Washington.

Immigration Enforcement and State Cooperation

Enforcement has always required some level of cooperation between federal and local authorities. ICE has only about 6,000 enforcement agents nationwide—far too few to handle enforcement without help from the roughly 700,000 local police officers across the country.

Washington has historically sought voluntary partnerships with local law enforcement. The 287(g) program, created in 1996, allows local officers to receive training and authorization to perform enforcement functions. As of 2025, about 150 jurisdictions nationwide participate in these formal partnerships.

The Supreme Court has made clear that Washington cannot compel local police to enforce federal law. That principle was established in Printz v. United States (1997), which struck down a law requiring local sheriffs to conduct background checks on gun purchasers.

What makes Operation Metro Surge different is the scale and the explicit linkage between deployment and policy demands. Previous operations have targeted specific individuals with outstanding deportation orders or criminal warrants. Operation Metro Surge appears designed to create enough disruption that local officials feel compelled to change their policies.

Minneapolis schools have reported increased absenteeism as families fear sending children to school. Emergency rooms have seen fewer patients seeking care. Small businesses in immigrant neighborhoods have reported significant revenue declines. The economic and social costs extend far beyond the individuals directly targeted for deportation.

Courts have recognized that even when Washington has legitimate authority to act, it must exercise that authority in ways that don’t unnecessarily burden state functions. An operation that disrupts schools, healthcare, and local commerce may cross the line into unconstitutional interference with core functions, even if the underlying authority is valid.

The Data Privacy Dimension

The demands for Medicaid, SNAP, and voter registration data raise distinct privacy concerns beyond the questions about state power.

Medicaid records are protected by both federal health privacy rules and state privacy laws. Washington’s authority to demand these records is unclear at best. If immigrants fear that seeking medical care will result in deportation, they’re less likely to get treatment for contagious diseases, prenatal care, or emergency services. Public health officials have warned that using healthcare data for enforcement could create serious public health risks that affect everyone, not immigrant communities alone.

SNAP records present similar concerns. The Privacy Act restricts how agencies can share personally identifiable information. Courts have already found that USDA’s demands for detailed SNAP recipient data violate these protections. Using food assistance records for enforcement would likely discourage eligible families from accessing nutrition benefits, leading to increased food insecurity and its associated health and educational consequences.

Voter registration data carries its own risks. Voter files include not names and addresses alone but detailed information about voting history, party affiliation, and in some cases demographic data. The potential for misuse of this information extends beyond enforcement to voter intimidation and suppression.

Courts in California and Oregon have already rejected similar data demands, finding them both legally unauthorized and practically dangerous. The judges noted that turning over unredacted voter files could discourage people from voting and create risks of identity theft and harassment.

The Political Stakes

The Minnesota confrontation has become a flashpoint in broader debates about federal power. But the constitutional principles at stake transcend partisan divisions.

Conservative legal scholars have long championed limits on federal power. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves to states all powers not delegated to Washington, has been a cornerstone of conservative constitutional theory. Many conservative judges have written forcefully about the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between federal and state authority.

That’s why the coalition of attorneys general includes officials from both parties. Arizona’s participation is particularly significant. The state has historically taken a hard line on enforcement and has clashed with previous Democratic administrations over sanctuary policies. But Arizona’s attorney general recognizes that allowing Washington to coerce states through massive law enforcement deployments sets a dangerous precedent—one that could be used against Arizona in future disputes over different issues.

Democratic states that now resist enforcement might someday welcome intervention on climate change or gun control. Republican states that now support aggressive enforcement might object to pressure on other issues. The constitutional principles need to remain consistent regardless of which policies are at stake.

What’s at risk is not any particular policy but the structural protections that prevent any administration from using overwhelming force to coerce state compliance. Those protections exist to preserve the federal system itself—the division of power between national and state governments that the Constitution establishes.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.