A federal judge on Monday declined to immediately curb the federal operation that has put armed agents on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but ordered the government to file a new briefing by Wednesday evening answering a central claim in the case: that the surge is being used to punish Minnesota and force state and local authorities to change their laws and cooperate with the targeting of local immigrants.
The order leaves the operation’s scope and tactics in place for now, but requires the federal government to explain whether it is using armed raids and street arrests to pressure Minnesota into detaining immigrants and handing 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 surge was a tool to coerce the state to change laws, share public assistance data and other state records, divert local resources to assist immigration arrests, and people in custody “for longer periods of time than otherwise allowed.”
The judge said the additional briefing was required because the coercion claim became clearer only after recent developments, including public statements by senior administration officials made after Minnesota sought emergency relief.
A key factor in the court’s analysis is a January 24 letter from US attorney general Pam Bondi to Minnesota governor Tim Walz, which Minnesota described as an “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 state welfare and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate with federal immigration arrests. She warned that the 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—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 the hearing on Monday, lawyers for Minnesota and the cities argued that the federal deployment had crossed from investigating immigration violations into sustained street policing and “illegal” behavior, producing an ongoing public-safety crisis that warranted immediate limits. They pointed to fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemical agents in crowded areas, schools canceling classes or shifting online, parents keeping children home, and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings out of fear.
The plaintiffs argued that these were not injuries of the past but ongoing harms, and that waiting to litigate individual cases would leave the cities to absorb the violence, fear and disruption of an operation they do not control. The legal fight, they said, turns on whether the Constitution allows a federal operation to impose those costs and risks on state and local governments, and whether the conduct described in the record was isolated or so widespread that only immediate, court-ordered limits could restore basic order.
In filings, the plaintiffs describe an operation that DHS has publicly promoted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, with the department claiming it deployed more than 2,000 agents into the Twin Cities; more than the combined number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They argue the federal presence turned into day-to-day patrols in otherwise sleepy neighborhoods, with agents pulling over residents at random, detaining them on sidewalks, and making sweeping detentions without suspecting criminal conduct.
The filings also lead with the gravest fact about the operation: US citizens who were not its targets have now been shot and killed.
Judge Menendez pressed repeatedly on how far a federal court could go, questioning what relief the law would allow and how much authority she had to intervene in a federal operation of this scale. She said she was focused on the legal claims before her, not on policing the entire surge, and asked whether any remedy would have to be tied to specific unlawful acts rather than the operation as a whole.
Throughout the exchange, the judge kept returning to whether the state was being unlawfully coerced rather than simply overruled by federal priorities. She asked at what point the federal government’s actions leave state and local officials with no real ability to refuse cooperation, object, or opt out. She also questioned whether sending thousands of armed agents into one state could cross a constitutional line, forcing cities and counties to reroute police and emergency crews, secure and manage federal crime scenes, or handle arrests and medical responses they didn’t plan for.
The cities argued that the scale of the deployment itself had forced them into crisis mode—diverting police, fire and emergency resources, canceling days off, and spending millions to stabilize neighborhoods shaken by armed federal activity. Lawyers for the federal government pushed back, warning that the plaintiffs were effectively asking for a state veto over federal enforcement and urging the court not to step in without hearing from witnesses and seeing more evidence. Intervening now, they argued, would trigger an immediate appeal.
On January 7, a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident, during a sweep by armed officers in south Minneapolis that had nothing to do with her immigration status. Federal officials and the White House called the shooting “defensive,” alleging she struck an agent with her vehicle. Independent analysis of video evidence shows her vehicle never hit any agents, and witnesses and journalists have contested the official account; an autopsy found she was shot three times, including a fatal wound to the head.
On January 16, a US district judge moved to restrict federal agents’ ability to detain and use crowd-control force against peaceful community members monitoring federal raids. But on January 21, a higher federal court stayed the order pending appeal.
Days later, federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who worked at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and was also a US citizen, during another operation in the city.
Border Patrol officials, backed by the White House, alleged Pretti posed a lethal threat and “violently resisted,” a narrative echoed by President Donald Trump, who had labeled Pretti “the gunman.” The government’s claims were immediately falsified by a slew of bystander footage shot from multiple angles, showing Pretti holding a phone and cooperating with commands as agents closed in, before he was pepper sprayed at close range, forced to the pavement, pinned, and shot from behind.
Within hours, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency motion asking the federal appeals court to lift the stay that had allowed ICE to resume detentions and use of force against Minnesotans peacefully monitoring federal operations. The court has not yet ruled, leaving the restrictions off for now.
Minnesota’s statewide investigators say federal authorities absconded with evidence from the scene of Pretti’s killing, including “apparently seized cellphones,” while blocking state officers from entering the area; actions they warn may have compromised critical evidence. In the aftermath, Minnesota authorities took the highly unusual step of seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the federal government from altering or destroying evidence—a request that a federal judge, in an equally unusual move, granted within hours.
Minnesotans have personally described violent encounters with federal agents in numerous sworn declarations—being thrown to the ground, handcuffed, and detained for mere acts of observing from sidewalks or asking officers questions. Separate from state authorities, a group of individual Minnesotans have brought their own lawsuit against Noem and DHS. The plaintiffs include retirees, health workers, attorneys, and community volunteers.
They describe assaults that left them injured and shaken, and fearful of moving freely in their own neighborhoods, despite having committed no crime.
In one account, a longtime neighborhood resident says she approached what appeared to be a group of federal agents in Minneapolis one morning, standing on a sidewalk about six feet away. She says the agents wore bulletproof vests, several had face coverings, and displayed no names or badges. When she asked whether they worked for ICE, an agent shouted, “Take her down!”, she says, before rushing her and pulling her face-down into the snow as she screamed for help.
The woman, who is 55 and runs a consulting business with her husband, says she was taken through the garage entrance of a building where officers searched her and stripped her of her belongings. They shackled her legs, she says, and cut off her boot laces, along with her bra and the wedding ring on her finger. According to the filing, she was released hours later, without paperwork, swollen and bruised.
“It was the original wedding band from my marriage 32 years ago,” she wrote. “It was a treasured symbol of my relationship with my husband.”
The post Judge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing Whether State Was Being Illegally Punished appeared first on Wired.
