Minneapolis Immigrant Groups Demand Strong Sanctuary City Protections

(MINNEAPOLIS) Immigrant rights groups in Minneapolis, led by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, or MIRAC, are pressing city leaders to adopt tougher sanctuary city rules after a summer incident placed local police alongside federal agents. In late September 2025, organizers renewed calls for tighter limits on how the Minneapolis Police Department works with federal immigration authorities, saying the city’s separation ordinance leaves loopholes that put undocumented residents at risk.

At the center of the dispute is a June 2025 federal operation at a Lake Street restaurant. City officials said the action targeted drug and human trafficking, not immigration. Still, activists say MPD officers helped with crowd control, and that visible support undercuts Minneapolis’ sanctuary city promise. They argue that any local police involvement with federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) spreads fear across immigrant neighborhoods, regardless of the operation’s stated focus.

MIRAC’s “Real Sanctuary Now” campaign

MIRAC launched its “Real Sanctuary Now” campaign in August 2025. The campaign includes four demands the group says would close gaps in the city’s current policy and sharpen enforcement of the separation rules already on the books.

The platform calls for the city to adopt the following changes and enforce them across all departments:

• No collusion: Ban any information sharing between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies, including ICE and HSI.
• No crowd control: Stop local police from assisting federal agencies in any way, including during crowd control at federal operations.
• No cover-ups: Require federal agents to clearly display agency name and identification, and forbid face coverings that hide identities during operations.
• Real consequences: Set clear penalties for any city staff or agency that violates the separation ordinance.

MIRAC says these steps would make Minneapolis a true sanctuary city in practice, not just in name. Organizers emphasize that a policy is only as strong as its enforcement and that clear consequences are needed to prevent backsliding when federal pressure rises.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, such local standards have become a major focus in cities where residents report a chilling effect after joint operations, even if those operations are not immigration-related.

City review and federal pressure

The Minneapolis City Council is reviewing MPD’s role in the June operation and considering activists’ demands. Council members are also weighing the city’s exposure to lawsuits and whether any policy update could invite new legal challenges from Washington.

The review comes as the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on September 29, 2025, against Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County. The complaint claims their sanctuary policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement and are unconstitutional.

City leaders now face twin pressures:

• Safeguard community trust and public safety.
• Prepare for federal litigation that could stretch on for years.

Minneapolis currently has a separation ordinance that limits collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. Advocates say the policy, more than two decades old, does not reflect present-day tactics used by federal agencies. They argue the ordinance allows indirect cooperation, such as data sharing or presence at multi-agency scenes, that can still expose residents to risk.

City attorneys are expected to examine where the policy might permit contact with federal agents and whether those areas can be tightened without violating state or federal law.

The federal challenge has added urgency. Activists note that recent executive actions and funding threats have placed sanctuary rules in a legal spotlight nationwide. While the Department of Justice is suing Minneapolis and its partners, the agency had not officially listed any Minnesota city as a sanctuary jurisdiction as of October 3, 2025. That gap between public claims and formal lists has left residents confused about what protections exist and when they apply.

Important: The DOJ lawsuit and the lack of formal federal designations have increased uncertainty for residents about when and how local protections actually work.

Community response and next steps

On September 20, 2025, more than 200 people gathered downtown to urge the City Council to adopt MIRAC’s four-point plan. Speakers argued that local protections are even more important after a recent Supreme Court ruling that, in their view, allows ICE to racially profile. They said that when federal rules expand enforcement power, cities must do more to draw bright lines that keep municipal staff out of immigration work.

Several local workers described daily fears:

• Parents avoiding school events.
• Employees skipping medical appointments.
• Tenants declining to report unsafe housing because they worry routine calls could lead to immigration questions.

The June operation deepened those concerns because uniformed local officers on the scene made it seem like the city endorsed the action.

City leaders have promised a careful review. Positions among officials vary:

• Some say the separation ordinance remains sound and MPD’s presence at the June scene followed standard public-safety practice.
• Others support clearer rules to prevent confusion about what local officers can do when federal agents request help.

Possible policy changes under consideration:

1. Update department manuals to prohibit assignments tied to federal immigration actions.
2. Require regular public reports on any federal contact, even when immigration is not the stated focus.
3. Train supervisors on how to decline requests that could blur lines between city policing and immigration enforcement.

Advocates argue the “No cover-ups” demand would help residents file complaints and hold agencies accountable. If federal agents must display IDs and cannot hide faces during operations, witnesses can better document what happened and who was involved. The “Real consequences” plank aims to ensure violations lead to prompt discipline, not quiet warnings.

Officials say they must also plan for federal pushback. The Justice Department lawsuit could target:

• Data-sharing limits.
• Detainer policies.
• Restrictions on joint operations.

Minneapolis may need to show that public safety is not harmed when immigrant residents trust local police. Supporters of stronger rules point to community policing research that shows crime reporting rises when people are not afraid of immigration consequences after calling 911.

Practical guidance for residents

As debate continues, residents are asking practical questions about how to respond if federal agents appear.

Advocates recommend:

• Ask to see a warrant signed by a judge before allowing entry.
• Remain silent about immigration status.
• Employers should consult counsel before allowing federal agents access to private areas.
• Use know-your-rights resources and hotlines to report encounters.

For official background on federal immigration enforcement, visit the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website: https://www.ice.gov. City policy cannot stop federal agents from acting within their authority, but local rules can decide whether city staff assists and what information is shared.

Timeline and outlook

The Council’s timeline remains fluid. Staff are gathering incident reports, legal memos, and community feedback. Any ordinance amendment would likely move through committee hearings before reaching a full Council vote.

• Activists want a vote soon, arguing delay is risky in the current climate.
• Business owners want clear communication so employees and customers know what to expect during any future federal operation.

For now, Minneapolis’ sanctuary posture hinges on two tracks:

1. Local policy decisions that could tighten the separation ordinance.
2. The federal lawsuit that may test how far cities can go in limiting cooperation.

MIRAC’s “Real Sanctuary Now” campaign has set a clear marker. Whether the city meets it—and how courts view those steps—will shape how safe immigrant families feel when they see a police car on their block or a federal badge at their door.