Judge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing Whether State Is Being Illegally Punished

Federal judge He refused Monday to immediately limit the federal operation that deployed armed agents on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but ordered the government to provide a new briefing by Wednesday evening to respond to the central allegation in the case: that the surge is being used to punish Minnesotans and force state and local authorities to change their laws and cooperate with the targeting of domestic immigrants.

The executive order leaves open the scope and tactics of the operation for now, but requires the federal government to clarify 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 DHS to respond to allegations that the surge was a tool to force the state to change laws, share public assistance data and other state records, divert local resources to help detain immigrants, and detain people “for longer periods of time than are permitted.”

The judge said the additional briefing was required because the allegation of coercion only became clearer after recent developments, including public statements by senior administration officials after Minnesota requested emergency relief.

A key factor in the court’s analysis was a January 24 letter from U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, which Minnesota called “extortion.” In it, Bondi accuses Minnesota officials of “lawlessness” and demands what she calls “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law,” including turning over the state’s welfare and voter data, rescinding sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate with federal immigration arrests. She warned that federal operations would continue if the state did not comply.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case —State of Minnesota v. Noem– It was brought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis and St. Paul against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and senior officials of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, CBP, and Border Patrol.

At Monday’s hearing, lawyers for the state of Minnesota and the cities said the federal deployment has moved from investigating immigration violations to policing the streets and “unlawful” behavior, creating an ongoing public safety crisis that warrants immediate restrictions. They pointed to fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemicals in crowded areas, schools canceling classes or moving them online, parents keeping their children at home, and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings in fear.

The plaintiffs argued that these were not past injuries but ongoing harms, and that waiting to file individual lawsuits would leave cities internalizing violence, fear and disruption of a process they had no control over. The legal battle is over whether the Constitution allows a federal process to impose those costs and risks on state and local governments, and whether the behavior described in the record is so isolated or so widespread that the statute can only be restored with immediate court-ordered limits, they said.

In the filings, prosecutors describe an operation that DHS publicly promoted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, with the department claiming to have deployed more than 2,000 agents in the Twin Cities; More than the total number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They say the federal presence has shifted to daily patrols in quiet neighborhoods, where agents randomly pull residents over, detain them on sidewalks, and carry out large-scale arrests without suspecting criminal behavior.