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 Jan. 24 letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, which Minnesota called “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.
The documents also begin with the most serious fact about the operation: American citizens who were not its targets have now been shot.
Judge Menendez repeatedly stressed 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 magnitude. She said she was focused on the legal proceedings before her, not on controlling the entire wave, and questioned whether any appeals should be linked to specific illegal acts rather than the operation as a whole.
Throughout the exchange, the judge kept questioning whether the state was being illegally coerced rather than simply overruled by federal priorities. She questioned the extent to which the federal government’s actions left state and local officials with no real ability to refuse cooperation, object or withdraw. She also questioned whether sending thousands of armed officers into a state might cross a constitutional line, forcing cities and counties to redirect police and emergency crews, secure and manage federal crime scenes, or handle arrests and medical responses they hadn’t anticipated.
Cities argued that the scale of the deployment itself forced them into crisis mode — diverting police, fire and EMS resources, canceling furlough days and spending millions to stabilize neighborhoods shaken by federal armed activity. Attorneys for the federal government responded, warning that the plaintiffs were in effect seeking a state veto of the federal application and urging the court not to intervene 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 Renée Nicole Gooda 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 officer with her vehicle. An independent analysis of video evidence shows that his vehicle never struck any officers, and witnesses and journalists have disputed the official version; an autopsy revealed that she had been shot three times, including a fatal wound to the head.
On January 16, a U.S. district judge ruled to restrict federal agents’ ability to detain and use crowd control force against peaceful community members who were monitoring federal raids. But on Jan. 21, a higher federal court stayed the order pending appeal.
Days later, federal agents shot and killed Alex Prettia 37-year-old intensive care nurse who worked at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and was also a U.S. citizen, during another operation in the city.
Border Patrol officials, backed by the White House, claimed Pretti posed a deadly threat and “resisted violently,” an account echoed by President Donald Trump, who called Pretti a “shooter.” The government’s claims were immediately refuted by a trove of bystander footage filmed from multiple angles, showing Pretti holding a phone and cooperating with commands as officers closed in, before being pepper-sprayed at point-blank range, forced onto the sidewalk, pinned down and shot from behind.
Within hours, lawyers for 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 who peacefully monitored federal operations. The court has yet to rule, leaving the restrictions lifted for now.
Minnesota state investigators say federal authorities fled with evidence from the scene of Pretti’s murder, including “apparently seized cell phones,” while preventing state agents from entering the area; the actions they prevent may have compromised critical evidence. Subsequently, 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 confrontations with federal agents in numerous affidavits: They were thrown to the ground, handcuffed and detained for simply watching from the sidewalks or asking questions of the agents. Separated from state authorities, a group of Minnesotans filed their own lawsuit against Noem and DHS. The plaintiffs include retirees, health care workers, lawyers and community volunteers.
They describe attacks that left them injured and shaken, and made them afraid to move freely in their own neighborhood, even though they had committed no crime.
In one account, a longtime neighborhood resident said she approached what appeared to be a group of federal agents in Minneapolis one morning, standing on a sidewalk about 6 feet away. She said the officers wore bulletproof vests, several had their faces covered and did not display names or badges. When she asked if they worked for ICE, an agent yelled, “Take her down!” she said, before rushing her and pulling her face down into the snow as she screamed for help.
The woman, aged 55 and who runs a consulting business with her husband, claims to have been taken through the garage entrance of a building where police searched her and stripped her of her belongings. They chained her legs, she said, and cut the laces on her boots, as well as her bra and the wedding ring on her finger. She was released hours later, undocumented, swollen and bruised, according to the filing.
“This was the original wedding ring from my wedding 32 years ago,” she wrote. “It was a treasured symbol of my relationship with my husband.”
