A federal judge ruled on Monday that the federal operation sending armed agents into the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul will continue for now, but ordered the government to submit a new briefing by Wednesday evening. This briefing needs to address a key claim in the case: whether the increase in federal presence is meant to punish Minnesota and compel state and local authorities to alter their laws regarding immigration.
While the judge’s order maintains the current scope and tactics of the operation, it requires clarification on whether these armed raids and street arrests are being used to pressure Minnesota into detaining immigrants and sharing sensitive state information. Judge Kate Menendez specifically instructed the federal government to respond to allegations that Operation Metro Surge was intended to “punish Plaintiffs for adopting sanctuary laws and policies.”
The court mandated the Department of Homeland Security to clarify claims that the surge serves as a tactic to coerce the state into changing laws, sharing public assistance data, and reallocating local resources for immigration arrests. Additionally, concerns were raised about holding individuals in custody longer than is typically permitted. The judge stated that the need for further documentation arose as the coercion claim became clearer after recent statements by senior officials following Minnesota’s request for emergency relief.
A significant element in the court’s consideration is a January 24 letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, which Minnesota characterized as “extortion.” In the letter, Bondi accused state officials of “lawlessness” and urged them to take what she described as “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law.” These demands included providing state welfare and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies, and instructing local officials to assist with federal immigration arrests. Bondi warned that federal operations would persist if the state did not comply.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case—State of Minnesota v. Noem—was initiated by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison along with Minneapolis and St. Paul against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and senior officials from DHS, ICE, CBP, and Border Patrol.
During Monday’s hearing, lawyers for Minnesota and the cities contended that the federal deployment had shifted from investigating immigration violations to continuous street policing and “illegal” activities, creating an ongoing public safety crisis that necessitated immediate limitations. They cited incidents such as fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemical agents in crowded spaces, school closures or transitions to online learning, and families keeping children at home out of fear. Residents have reportedly been avoiding public spaces like streets, stores, and buildings due to this heightened tension.
The plaintiffs argued that these issues are not just remnants of the past but ongoing harms. Waiting to address individual cases could leave the cities facing the repercussions of violence and fear from an operation they do not control. They raised questions about whether the Constitution permits a federal operation to impose such burdens and whether the described conduct was isolated or pervasive enough that only immediate court-ordered limits could help restore order.
In legal documents, the plaintiffs detailed an operation that DHS publicly touted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, claiming to have deployed more than 2,000 agents to the Twin Cities—outnumbering the total number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They alleged that the federal presence turned into frequent patrols in otherwise quiet neighborhoods, with agents randomly stopping residents, detaining them on sidewalks, and making large-scale arrests without reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior.
