Judge set to hear arguments on Minnesota’s immigration crackdown after fatal shootings

Federal Judge to Hear Arguments on Minnesota’s Immigration Enforcement Challenge

A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether to temporarily halt an immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has resulted in two fatal shootings by federal officers in recent weeks.

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, shortly after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Good. The case has gained urgency following a second fatal shooting on Saturday, when a Border Patrol officer killed Alex Pretti.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who plans to personally attend the hearing, emphasized the unprecedented nature of the federal operation. “It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this,” Ellison told reporters at a Sunday news conference.

The hearing will take place in federal court in Minneapolis before U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez. Since their original filing, the state and cities have expanded their requests, seeking to restore conditions that existed prior to December 1, when the Trump administration launched an initiative called “Operation Metro Surge.”

The plaintiffs are specifically asking Judge Menendez to order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce their presence in Minnesota to pre-surge levels, while allowing them to continue immigration enforcement within a detailed set of proposed limitations.

The Justice Department has dismissed the lawsuit as “legally frivolous,” arguing that “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” Federal attorneys have asked the judge to reject the request or at minimum stay her order pending an expected appeal.

The case has drawn national attention and support from other states concerned about similar federal operations. Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia, led by California, filed an amicus brief supporting Minnesota’s position. “If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the coalition wrote.

This isn’t Judge Menendez’s first involvement in disputes between Minnesota and federal immigration authorities. On January 16, she ruled in a separate case that federal officers cannot detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including individuals who are following and observing agents.

That ruling was temporarily suspended by an appeals court just days before Saturday’s shooting. In response to the latest fatality, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota requested an emergency order lifting the suspension. The Justice Department has opposed this request, arguing the injunction is unworkable and too broad.

In a related development, another federal judge, Eric Tostrud, issued an order late Saturday prohibiting the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” connected to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty requested this order to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities haven’t yet examined.

“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison said. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

The legal battles reflect escalating tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement approaches and accountability. The outcome of Monday’s hearing could establish important precedents for federal immigration operations nationwide, potentially limiting how such operations are conducted in urban areas.

It remains unclear when Judge Menendez might issue a ruling following the hearing, but the case represents a significant test of the boundaries between federal immigration enforcement powers and local governance concerns.