Judge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing State’s Illegal Punishment
A federal judge on Monday he refused to immediately halt the federal operation that has put armed agents on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but ordered the government to file a new briefing Wednesday evening in response to the main claim in the lawsuit: that the operation is being used to punish Minnesota and force state and local authorities to change their laws and cooperate with local immigration targets.
The order leaves the scope of the operation and tactics currently in place, but requires the federal government to explain whether it is using armed raids and street arrests to pressure Minnesota to detain immigrants and hand over sensitive state data.
In a written statement, Judge Kate Menendez ordered the federal government to directly address that Operation Metro Surge was designed to “punish Plaintiffs for accepting sanctuary laws and policies.” The court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to respond to allegations that the raid was a tool to force the state to change laws, share public assistance information and other state records, divert local resources to assist in immigration detention, and detain people “for longer than otherwise permitted.”
The judge said the additional hearing was necessary because the enforcement claim has become clear after recent events, including public statements by senior administration officials made after Minnesota sought emergency relief.
A key element in the court’s analysis is a January 24 letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota governor Tim Walz, which Minnesota described as a “fraud.” In it, Bondi accuses Minnesota officials of “lawlessness” and calls for what he calls “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law,” including changing social security and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate in immigration detention. He warned that the operation of the state will continue if the state does not comply.
The Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Case-State of Minnesota v. Noem– delivered by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis, and St. Paul against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and top officials from DHS, ICE, CBP, and the Border Patrol.
In Monday’s hearing, attorneys for Minnesota and cities argued that the state’s deployment has shifted from investigating immigration violations to police officers who live on the streets and “unlawful” behavior, which has created an ongoing public safety problem that has prompted restrictions. They point to fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemicals in crowded areas, schools canceling classes or switching online, parents keeping children at home, and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings out of fear.
The plaintiffs said this was not a past injury but an ongoing injury, and waiting for a trial would leave cities to deal with violence, fear and surgical disruptions they do not control. The legal battle, they say, turns on whether the Constitution allows the federal government to impose those costs and risks on state and local governments, and whether the conduct described in the record was so isolated or widespread that swift, court-ordered restrictions would restore basic order.
In the filings, the plaintiffs describe the operation that DHS has publicly promoted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, which the department says has outsourced more than 2,000 agents to the Twin Cities; more than the combined number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. They argue that the organization’s presence has turned into daily patrols in slums, with agents pulling residents from anywhere, blocking them off the streets, and arresting many people without suspecting criminal behavior.
