Federal Court Rejects Minnesota's Bid to Halt ICE Surge
A federal judge in Minnesota denied a preliminary injunction sought by the state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to halt Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale federal immigration enforcement action launched in December 2025.
Court Decision and Jurisdiction
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez issued the ruling on Saturday, January 31, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs, represented by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, argued that the deployment of approximately 3,000 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, including ICE and CBP personnel, violated constitutional principles. Judge Menendez determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs’ Legal Arguments
The lawsuit alleged violations of the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, as established in cases like New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and Murphy v. NCAA. Plaintiffs claimed the operation forced state and local resources to manage disruptions, diverting police from routine duties and imposing significant overtime costs, estimated at over $2 million in early January 2026.
Additional claims included breaches of the First Amendment, equal sovereignty under the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to alleged arbitrary and capricious actions, such as racial profiling, excessive force, and warrantless arrests in sensitive locations.
Resource Diversion and Standing
Minnesota highlighted fiscal burdens from responding to incidents like school lockdowns, business closures, and abandoned vehicles left by federal agents. However, the court referenced United States v. Texas, holding that indirect budgetary impacts from federal immigration enforcement do not establish standing or constitute a Tenth Amendment violation.
Judge’s Analysis of Key Claims
The equal sovereignty argument, drawn from Shelby County v. Holder, was rejected because the operation involved executive discretion in allocating federal resources, not statutes targeting specific states. Judge Menendez acknowledged reports of severe community impacts, including fatal shootings and disruptions to education, healthcare, and local economies, but balanced these against the federal interest in immigration enforcement.
While recognizing “profound and even heartbreaking” consequences and limited Supreme Court guidance on anti-commandeering in this context, the judge denied relief, citing precedents like Tincher v. Noem that upheld federal flexibility during the operation.
Broader Legal Context
Operation Metro Surge, initiated by the Trump administration, targeted criminal noncitizens in the Twin Cities, resulting in about 3,000 arrests. Public statements from officials, including Border Czar Tom Homan and Attorney General Pam Bondi, linked the operation’s scope to local cooperation with immigration enforcement, amid Minnesota’s sanctuary policies.
The ruling allows the operation to proceed while litigation continues, underscoring tensions between federal immigration authority and state sovereignty in the U.S. legal framework.
This decision highlights ongoing debates over federal-state relations in immigration enforcement, with potential implications for future challenges under the Tenth Amendment and APA.
Source: US federal court denies Minnesota bid to stop ‘Operation Metro Surge’
