The order leaves out the scope and tactics of the operation for now, 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 order, Judge Kate Menendez directed the federal government to directly address whether Operation Metro Surge was designed to “punish Plaintiffs for adopting sanctuary laws and policies.” The court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to respond to allegations that the increases were a tool to force the state to change laws, limit the sharing of public assistance data and other state records, divert local resources to assist in immigration arrests, and keep people in custody “longer than otherwise allowed.”
The judge said the additional briefing was needed because the force majeure claim only became apparent after recent developments, including public statements from senior administration officials after Minnesota sought emergency relief.
A key factor in the court’s analysis is a January 24 letter written by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, which Minnesota described as “extortion.” In it, Bondi accused Minnesota officials of “lawlessness” and demanded what he called “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law”, including turning over state welfare and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate with federal immigration arrests. He warned that the federal campaign would continue if the state did not comply.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Case-State of Minnesota v. Noem-The suit was brought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis and St. Paul against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and senior DHS, ICE, CBP and Border Patrol officials.
At a hearing Monday, attorneys for Minnesota and the cities argued that the federal deployment has shifted from investigating immigration violations to relentless street policing and “illegal” behavior, creating a public-safety crisis that needs to be immediately limited. He pointed to fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemical agents in crowded areas, schools canceling classes or moving online, parents keeping children at home and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings out of fear.
The plaintiffs argued that these are not past injuries, but ongoing harms, and that waiting to litigate individual cases would leave cities to suffer violence, fear, and disruption to an operation they do not control. The legal fight depends on whether the Constitution allows a federal operation to impose those costs and risks on state and local governments, he said, and whether the conduct described in the records was isolated or so widespread that only immediate, court-ordered limits could restore basic order.
In the filing, the plaintiffs describe an operation that DHS has publicly promoted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, with the department claiming it has deployed more than 2,000 agents to the Twin Cities; More than the number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul combined. They argue that the federal presence turned into day-to-day patrols in otherwise sleepy neighborhoods, in which agents randomly pulled over residents, detained them on sidewalks, and conducted blanket detentions without suspecting criminal conduct.
<a href