Two cities in Minnesota are joining a lawsuit filed by San Francisco over the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities as a growing number of municipalities complain about the effort to force them to cooperate with immigration enforcement operations. 

St. Paul and Minneapolis signed onto the San Francisco lawsuit, and claimed their sanctuary city status does not oppose federal immigration enforcement. 

The mayor of St. Paul, Melvin Carter, said, “Nothing that we have said has been in opposition to lawful enforcement of immigration law. What we’ve said is that city employees will not be deputized, will not be commandeered in service to enforce federal immigration policy. That’s never been our job, and it never will be.”

Mr. Carter said St. Paul is “currently relying on approximately $260 million” in federal funding. He added that money is used to pay for services such as paid internships, pothole filling, and construction costs for the Como Zoo.

“We do not accept those dollars, resources that our residents rely on, being held hostage,” he said. 

While Mr. Carter insisted that St. Paul is not opposing immigration enforcement measures, the White House criticized the city for not honoring requests to hold illegal immigrants accused of crimes in custody. It also criticized Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, for saying state law prohibits officials from holding someone who would have been released due to a detainer request. 

Meanwhile, the city of Minneapolis told Fox 9, “For more than two decades through its separation ordinance, Minneapolis has prioritized using its resources for the health and safety of the entire Minneapolis community. The city’s policy is clear: ‘the city does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing Federal immigration laws.’”

The cities of Somerville and Chelsea in Massachusetts also filed a lawsuit this week over the Trump administration’s “heavy-handed tactics” and its warnings that it will strip sanctuary cities of federal funding. 

The lawsuit alleges that cutting off federal funding would “undermine Plaintiffs’ efforts to enhance the safety of their own communities through well-considered law enforcement efforts and policy judgments and would violate the U.S. Constitution.” It lays out arguments against the president dictating which jurisdictions receive federal funds, arguing that it is left up to Congress. 

The cities also say cutting off federal funds would be “particularly harmful” to their jurisdictions and threatens the ability to set their own policies. However, the filing does not explain why the cities believe they are entitled to federal funding while advancing laws that can hinder immigration enforcement operations. 

In a statement, an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights, Oren Sellstrom, said,  “The President cannot use federal funding as a weapon to force local governments to undermine public safety and their values and participate in his mass deportation efforts.”

The city manager of Chelsea, Fidel Maltez, said that using the threat of cutting off federal funds to encourage cities to cooperate with immigration enforcement officials “undermines the safety of everyone in our community.”

Meanwhile, the mayor of Somerville, Katjana Ballantyne, said, “Bullying sanctuary cities is not just an assault on immigrants or cities — it’s an assault on all of us, on state and local rights, on the economy, and the Constitution. So, Somerville is standing up for what is both lawful and right.”

Chelsea received roughly $14.5 million in federal funding in the 2024 fiscal year, while Somerville received roughly $19.4 million in federal funding. 

Attorney General Bondi issued a memo earlier this month that ordered a pause on federal funding for cities with sanctuary policies.