Federal judge extends order protecting refugees in Minnesota from being arrested and deported

A federal judge in Minneapolis has extended protections for refugees in Minnesota against a controversial Trump administration policy that could have led to their arrest and deportation despite their lawful presence in the United States.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim on Friday converted a temporary restraining order issued in January into a more comprehensive preliminary injunction while the case proceeds through the courts. In his strongly worded 66-page opinion, Tunheim criticized the policy as turning the “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”

The ruling prevents federal authorities from detaining refugees in Minnesota who entered the country legally but have not yet obtained permanent resident status, commonly known as green cards. While the protection only applies within Minnesota’s borders, the case highlights nationwide concerns about a Department of Homeland Security policy announced February 18.

“Minnesota refugees can now live their lives without fear that their own government will snatch them off the street and imprison them far from loved ones,” said Kimberly Grano, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, in a statement to The Associated Press.

At the heart of the dispute is the Trump administration’s interpretation of immigration law, which contends that refugees must return to federal custody one year after their admission to the United States for review of their green card applications. This interpretation could potentially affect tens of thousands of refugees across the country who entered legally under established refugee programs.

Judge Tunheim expressed profound skepticism about this legal rationale. “This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled,” he wrote.

The judge emphasized America’s longstanding commitment to refugees fleeing persecution, noting that the U.S. had promised these individuals the opportunity to build new lives after undergoing rigorous background checks. “We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream,” Tunheim stated. “The Government’s new policy breaks that promise — without congressional authorization — and raises serious constitutional concerns.”

The ruling cited a particularly troubling case of a refugee identified as D. Doe, who was arrested in January after being told someone had struck his car. According to court documents, he was immediately flown to Texas, where he was interrogated about his refugee status while kept in “shackles and handcuffs” for sixteen hours. Authorities ultimately released him on the streets of Texas, leaving him to find his way back to Minnesota on his own.

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services responded forcefully to the ruling, calling it “yet another lawless and activist order from a federal judge” and expressing confidence that the Trump administration would be “vindicated in court.”

“USCIS is committed to rooting out fraud and protecting the public safety and national security interests of the American people by screening and vetting aliens,” the agencies said in a joint statement Friday night.

During a court hearing last week, Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers argued that the government should retain the right to arrest refugees one year after their entry into the U.S., though he suggested such arrests would not be universal practice.

The case has drawn attention from immigration advocacy groups nationwide, who fear the policy could devastate refugee communities that have built lives in the United States after fleeing violence, persecution, and instability in their home countries. Many of these refugees have established homes, secured employment, and enrolled children in schools while awaiting the completion of their immigration process.

The preliminary injunction will remain in effect as the case moves forward through the federal court system, potentially setting up a broader legal battle over refugee rights and the limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement.