Listen to the article
Federal Judge Denies Request to Halt Immigration Enforcement Surge in Minnesota
A federal judge has rejected a request to stop a controversial immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to continue its activities despite strong opposition from state and local officials.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, argued that federal immigration authorities are violating constitutional protections through an aggressive enforcement action dubbed “Operation Metro Surge.”
In her ruling, Judge Menendez focused on whether the state’s constitutional arguments were likely to succeed in court. The lawsuit claims the federal government is violating the 10th Amendment, which limits federal power to infringe on state sovereignty. Federal officials countered that the operation is necessary to remove criminal immigrants from the streets and has been made more difficult by local “sanctuary laws and policies.”
State officials maintain the surge represents retaliation after earlier federal attempts to withhold funding to force immigration cooperation failed. They argue the operation has unconstitutionally drained state and local resources, with schools and businesses closing due to fear created by what they describe as aggressive federal officers.
“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” Judge Menendez wrote.
The judge also cited a recent government victory at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which set aside her earlier decision limiting the use of force by immigration officers against peaceful Minnesota protesters. “If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here — halting the entire operation — certainly would,” she explained.
Despite denying the injunction, Menendez acknowledged the operation’s “profound and even heartbreaking” effect on Minnesota residents, noting multiple shootings of state residents by federal agents. “Additionally, there is evidence that ICE and CBP agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” the judge wrote.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said during a news conference in Miami that her agency will try to work with local law enforcement and state leadership on the effort.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey expressed disappointment with the decision. “This decision doesn’t change what people here have lived through — fear, disruption, and harm caused by a federal operation that never belonged in Minneapolis in the first place,” Frey said. “This operation has not brought public safety. It’s brought the opposite and has detracted from the order we need for a working city. It’s an invasion, and it needs to stop.”
Attorney General Ellison emphasized that the case is still in its early stages, and his office will continue pursuing the lawsuit. “We know that these 3,000 immigration agents are here to intimidate Minnesota and bend the state to the federal government’s will,” Ellison said. “That is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment and the principle of equal sovereignty.”
The federal operation has created significant tension in Minnesota, particularly in Minneapolis, where federal officers fatally shot two people: Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24. These incidents have sparked large protests across Minnesota and other parts of the country.
The human impact of the operation has been substantial. At a demonstration in a Minneapolis park following the ruling, Tucker Johnson, a 27-year-old middle school teacher, noted a significant drop in school attendance. “Our students can’t get an education, because they and their families are too scared to go to school. That’s wrong, no matter what the court says,” Johnson said.
The operation represents a broader national debate about immigration enforcement and the balance of power between federal authorities and state governments. As the lawsuit proceeds, Minnesota communities continue to navigate the tension between federal immigration priorities and local concerns about community safety and trust.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Immigration enforcement is a sensitive topic with valid arguments on both sides. The federal government has a duty to uphold the law, but state and local officials must also consider community impacts. Hopefully a constructive dialogue can lead to a balanced approach that respects all stakeholders.
Well said. Finding the right compromise will require open and thoughtful discussions between all parties involved.
This is a difficult situation without clear-cut solutions. The federal government has an obligation to enforce immigration laws, but state and local authorities understandably want to mitigate impacts on their communities. I hope the courts can provide guidance on navigating this complex balance of powers.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, states and localities have concerns about the impact on their communities. An open and thoughtful dialogue is needed to find a balanced approach that upholds the law while respecting state/local needs.
I agree, this is a delicate balance between federal authority and state/local interests. Hopefully the courts can provide guidance on the constitutional boundaries here.
It’s understandable that state and local officials are concerned about the effects of aggressive immigration enforcement on their communities. However, the federal government also has a responsibility to remove criminal immigrants. A collaborative approach may be needed to address both sets of priorities.
Striking the right balance is critical. Perhaps the two sides can find common ground through open discussions and compromise.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. While the federal government has immigration enforcement responsibilities, state and local governments have legitimate concerns about the impacts on their communities. I hope the courts can provide clarity on the appropriate scope of federal action.