Judge rules against Trump in Minnesota sanctuary city lawsuit 39%

By Emily Hallas42%

7/21/2026, 12:08:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 608 faulty-reasoning hits from 326 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.5% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,050 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.60% of the article peer group.

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Monday from overruling state immigration regulations in Minnesota , marking a blow for federal power. 
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in September against the Twin Cities, Hennepin County, and the state over “sanctuary city policies” that limit local law enforcement’s collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 
U.S. 
District Judge Eric C. 
Tostrud, who was appointed by President Donald Trump , dismissed the complaint this week, describing the government’s attempt to preempt local regulation as a violation of the 10th Amendment. 
He said the disputed policies merely “regulate how state and local officials perform their duties.” 
“They do not command the federal government or its contractors to act. 
They do not forbid the federal government or its contractors from acting,” Tostrud wrote in court filings . 
They do not control how the federal government or its contractors undertake their work. 
Rather, they regulate how state and local officials perform their duties.” 
“The challenged provisions do not single the federal government out for less favorable treatment, at least not in any sense that shows an intergovernmental immunity violation,” he continued. 
The Trump administration has argued that the challenged policies, which include state statutes limiting access to driver’s license and vehicle registration data for immigration enforcement, as well as local ordinances barring state officers from enforcing federal immigration law, violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which states that federal law must be supreme over state and local law. 
ICE SITS FROZEN AMID TRUMP-MULLIN TRAFFIC STOP DEBACLE 
“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said last year, as the Justice Department filed the lawsuit. 
However, Tostrud ruled that forcing local jurisdictions to comply with federal requests to hold a deportation target for pickup, among other policies, violates state power as described in the 10th Amendment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%Emily Hallas: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 9.8%Emily Hallas: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 5.2%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Emily Hallas: 6.7%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 3.0%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Emily Hallas: 8.5%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 3.6%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Emily Hallas: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Emily Hallas: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Emily Hallas: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 4.5%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 3.0%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 2.5%Emily Hallas: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring2.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.6%Emily Hallas: 5.7%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.1%Emily Hallas: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.2%Emily Hallas: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote13.2%This article: 3.7%Emily Hallas: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.7%This article: 21.2%Emily Hallas: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice21.2%This article: 10.1%Emily Hallas: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination10.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Emily Hallas: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.8%This article: 9.5%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.5%

326 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers40%attributed speech195writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 15 words • 100.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 12 words • 100.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 18 words • 0.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 14 words • 0.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 11 words • 0.0% coverageEric C. Tostrud • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coveragePam Bondi • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pam Bondi

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words25% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Pam Bondi: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.4 ptsWriter: 35.4%Pam Bondi: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Pam Bondi: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Pam Bondi: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.