A federal judge On Monday, he refused to immediately curb the federal operation which putting armed officers on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paulbut ordered the government to table by Wednesday evening a new briefing responding to a central demand in the case: that the sudden rise is used to punish Minnesota and force state and local authorities to change their laws and cooperate in targeting local immigrants.
The order leaves the scope and tactics of the operation 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 orderJudge Kate Menendez ordered the federal government to directly determine 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 increase was a tool to coerce the state into changing laws, sharing public assistance data and other state records, diverting local resources to assist with immigration apprehensions, and keeping people in detention “for periods longer than otherwise permitted.”
The judge said additional information was needed because the allegation of coercion only became clearer after recent developments, including public statements by senior administration officials made after Minnesota requested emergency aid.
A key factor in the court’s analysis is a Letter of January 24 from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz in what Minnesota described as “extortion.” In it, Bondi accuses Minnesota officials of “anarchy” and demands what she calls “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law,” including disclosing the state’s welfare and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies and requiring 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 Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case…State of Minnesota v. Noah— was filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in Minneapolis and St. Paul against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and top officials at DHS, ICE, CBP and Border Patrol.
At Monday’s hearing, attorneys for Minnesota and the cities argued that the federal deployment had shifted from investigating immigration violations to sustained street policing and “unlawful” behavior, producing an ongoing public safety crisis that warranted immediate limits. They pointed to deadly shootings by federal agents, the use of chemical agents in busy areas, schools canceling classes or moving online, parents keeping their children home and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings out of fear.
The plaintiffs argued that these were not past injuries but ongoing harms, and that waiting to litigate individual cases would force cities to absorb the violence, fear and disruption of an operation they do not control. The legal fight, they say, is over whether the Constitution authorizes a federal operation to impose these costs and risks on state and local governments, and whether the conduct described in the filing was isolated or so widespread that only immediate court-ordered limits could restore basic order.
In their documents, the plaintiffs 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 to the Twin Cities; more than the combined number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They argue that the federal presence has morphed into daily patrols in otherwise sleepy neighborhoods, with officers stopping residents at random, arresting them on sidewalks and making blanket arrests without suspicion of criminal conduct.
