A federal judge in Minnesota will consider an extraordinary legal question on Monday: Can a deployment of federal law enforcement officers be so dangerous and so intrusive that it violates a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment?
Lawyers for the state of Minnesota, along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, have claimed that the Trump administration’s surge of some 3,000 immigration agents to the state has crossed the line into an unconstitutional and illegal occupation. They have asked a judge to temporarily halt the surge, which has led to three shootings, thousands of arrests and tense protests.
The Trump administration has dismissed the state’s legal theory, saying in court filings that it “would constitute an unprecedented act of judicial overreach” to expel federal officers from Minnesota. They have argued that Operation Metro Surge, as the administration has named its Minnesota campaign, is fully legal, and that it is up to the federal government to decide when and how to enforce federal laws.
The spotlight on Monday’s hearing in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis intensified over the weekend after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a local resident and nurse who appeared to be filming agents on the south side of Minneapolis. Federal officials said that Mr. Pretti, a U.S. citizen, had endangered agents. They accused him of engaging in “domestic terrorism” and noted that he was in possession of a gun.
Videos on social media that were verified by The New York Times contradict portions of the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the shooting. Minneapolis officials said Mr. Pretti, who is seen in the videos holding a cellphone, was licensed to legally carry a gun, and a witness who gave a sworn statement in court disputed the federal account of the incident.
In a letter to the judge on Saturday night, hours after the shooting, lawyers for the state and the cities reiterated their calls for an immediate pause of the surge that began late last year, writing that “the situation is grave.”
“This cannot continue,” they wrote. “We need the court to act to stop this surge before yet another resident dies because of Operation Metro Surge.”
What state and city lawyers say
The lawsuit, filed two weeks ago, argues that the surge in immigration enforcement in Minnesota is motivated by a “desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points.” The state and local governments told the judge that the deployment had panicked residents, endangered public safety and infringed on their ability to carry out basic government functions. Local law enforcement is overburdened, they said, and schools have been disrupted.
The case was filed days after the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal agent in Minneapolis. It does not seek an end to all immigration enforcement in Minnesota, but asks the judge to order a return to pre-surge levels of agents. It also asks for restrictions on the actions of agents who remain.
“Defendants’ actions appear designed to provoke community outrage, sow fear, and inflict emotional distress, and they are interfering with the ability of state and local officials to protect and care for their residents,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the state and cities have asked Judge Kate M. Menendez to temporarily block Operation Metro Surge and to immediately impose restrictions on the actions of remaining immigration agents. But Judge Menendez, who was nominated to the bench by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., declined to rule on that timetable during a hearing earlier this month, saying that the Trump administration needed time to respond to the case in writing.
Since that hearing, federal agents have been involved in two more shootings in Minneapolis.
What Trump administration lawyers say
Lawyers for the Trump administration have described the state and local governments’ claims as a fundamental misreading of the 10th Amendment, which gives powers not reserved for the federal government to the states.
The “10th Amendment and related claims have not a shred of legal support,” they said in a brief filed with the court.
The administration’s lawyers described Operation Metro Surge as a lawful campaign that had resulted in the arrests of people convicted of serious crimes and had made Minnesota safer. They said the president was acting within his authority and delivering on a campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration.
“President Trump campaigned and won election on a promise to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress,” the federal government’s lawyers said. “For the last year, D.H.S. has delivered on that promise by surging resources to the removal of aliens who entered this country illegally.”
The legal backdrop
Judge Menendez is scheduled to hear arguments on whether to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction at the courthouse in downtown Minneapolis on Monday morning. She could rule at any time.
During an earlier hearing, the judge noted that there was limited case law for a state challenging a federal law enforcement deployment on 10th Amendment grounds. Other Democratic-led states have challenged Mr. Trump’s deployment of National Guard members or federal troops during immigration enforcement campaigns.
Fred Smith Jr., a Stanford law professor, said Minnesota’s lawsuit “makes novel claims,” but that the “central government is doing novel things, and so there’s not a lot of precedent.”
A ruling in favor of Minnesota, Mr. Smith said, could “open up a door to kind of a new area of 10th Amendment jurisprudence, where the federal government in the future would have to be mindful about acting in ways that unduly interfered with states’ ability to carry out their own laws.”
On the same day that Minnesota officials sued, Illinois officials filed their own 10th Amendment case asking another judge to block U.S. Customs and Border Protection “from conducting civil immigration enforcement” in the state without “express congressional authorization.” An order has yet to be issued in that case.
Judge Menendez is also presiding over a case filed by Minnesota protesters who accused immigration agents of systematically violating their rights. She issued a preliminary injunction in that case, but that ruling was stayed by an appellate court after the Trump administration appealed.
Mitch Smith is a Chicago-based national correspondent for The Times, covering the Midwest and Great Plains.
The post Minnesota Claims the ICE Surge Is Illegal. A Judge Will Hear Arguments on Monday. appeared first on New York Times.
