Minnesota officials are refusing a series of demands from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi following the recent shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal immigration officers. The clash between state leaders and the Trump administration highlights ongoing tensions regarding federal immigration enforcement in the state. On the same day that Alex Pretti, a nurse, was fatally shot by immigration officers, Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Tim Walz, urging him to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and end what she described as chaos in the state.
In her letter, dated March 11, 2023, Bondi demanded that Minnesota restore the rule of law and consider what she termed “common sense solutions,” which included repealing the state’s so-called sanctuary policies. These policies are designed to limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. State officials have countered that the Trump administration’s claims of inadequate cooperation with ICE are unfounded.
Governor Walz has publicly called for an end to the Trump administration’s operations in Minnesota. During a news conference on March 12, he dismissed Bondi’s letter, asserting that it mischaracterizes the state’s commitment to public safety and legal compliance. The letter also requested that Minnesota share comprehensive records related to Medicaid and food assistance programs, including those under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), with the federal government.
The Trump administration has cited allegations of fraud, particularly among immigrants of Somali descent, as justification for its aggressive immigration policies. Minnesota is one of over 20 states that have resisted a demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for personal information about individuals who have applied for or received SNAP benefits over the past six years. These states argue that such a request is unlawful, and a federal judge in California has indicated that they are likely to succeed in their legal challenges.
In another development, the Department of Justice has made a renewed request for Minnesota’s voter data, part of a broader initiative targeting states won by Trump in the 2020 election. The DOJ has filed lawsuits against Minnesota and approximately two dozen other states, seeking unredacted versions of their voter lists under the pretense of enforcing federal election law. So far, these legal efforts have not yielded success. Recently, a federal judge in California dismissed a similar request, labeling it “unprecedented and illegal,” while another judge in Oregon signaled intentions to issue a similar ruling.
Minnesota’s chief election official, Steve Simon, a Democrat, expressed concerns about Bondi’s request, emphasizing that the law does not grant the federal government authority to access private voter data. In a statement, Simon described the request as “deeply disturbing,” suggesting that it appears to be a tactic to leverage state cooperation for federal immigration enforcement.
Legal scholar Rick Hasen from UCLA School of Law echoed these sentiments, criticizing the DOJ’s approach as “outrageous and reprehensible.” He suggested that the actions of ICE in Minnesota are not merely about law enforcement but rather an attempt to create unrest in states that lean Democratic.
Details regarding the federal government’s plans for the requested data remain unclear, but it is known that part of the strategy involves running voter lists through a revised system at the Department of Homeland Security designed to identify non-citizens. Despite extensive utilization of the system, known as SAVE, no substantial evidence of widespread voter fraud has emerged, contradicting claims made by the Trump administration. In a case in Texas, for instance, 15 of 84 voters flagged as non-citizens were found to be false positives.
The ongoing disputes between Minnesota officials and the Trump administration underscore the complex and often contentious relationship between state and federal authorities regarding immigration enforcement and civil rights issues. As these legal battles continue, the implications for immigrant communities and voting rights in Minnesota remain significant.
