Minnesota sues Trump admin over ICE operations
Minnesota state officials and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seeking to halt expansive federal immigration enforcement operations sweeping the Twin Cities. The legal action comes amid nationwide debate over immigration policy, federal authority, and local autonomy.
Lawsuit Frames Surge as an Unlawful “Federal Invasion”
At a news conference announcing the lawsuit, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison described the surge of federal agents — known as Operation Metro Surge — as equivalent to a “federal invasion of the Twin Cities” and called for immediate judicial intervention. The complaint asks for a temporary restraining order to suspend or limit enforcement activities while the case proceeds.
The lawsuit argues that the federal deployment has overwhelmed local infrastructure, diverted local law enforcement resources, and violated both state law and city ordinances. It contends that the surge, which has deployed thousands of agents from agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has created fear and disruption in communities rather than enhancing public safety.
Federal Enforcement: Arrests and Expanded Deployment
Federal authorities, meanwhile, defend the operation as lawful and necessary. DHS reports that its agents have made over 2,000 arrests in the Twin Cities since the surge began, targeting individuals alleged to be in the country illegally and, in some cases, charged with serious crimes. Additional CBP agents — reportedly more than 100 — have been deployed to support the surge.
Deputy Homeland Security officials say these enforcement actions are focused on public-safety concerns as well as immigration violations, though officials have declined to provide detailed public data supporting the tactic mix. DHS also argues its actions are constitutionally authorized under federal powers over immigration enforcement.
Context: Fatal Shooting and Public Outcry
The lawsuit arrives in the wake of a fatal shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis last week, which has deepened tensions between federal and local officials. On January 7, a federal agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a Minnesota resident, during an immigration enforcement activity in a residential neighborhood. Federal authorities claim the agent acted in self-defense after Good’s vehicle allegedly posed a threat to officers. Local leaders and witnesses have disputed aspects of the federal narrative, contributing to public outcry and protests.
Protests have since spread beyond Minneapolis, with demonstrations in dozens of cities nationwide condemning the shooting and demanding broader immigration enforcement reforms.
Political and Legal Crosscurrents
Minnesota’s lawsuit asserts that Operation Metro Surge exceeds federal authority and improperly commandeers state and local resources, violating both constitutional principles and Minnesota law. It also alleges that the enforcement initiative may be politically motivated, noting rhetoric from federal leaders critical of Minnesota’s local officials.
State and city leaders — including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her — argue the operation has disrupted public safety, strained emergency services, and threatened civil liberties. Some local schools have temporarily locked down amid concerns about federal agent presence near educational facilities.
Federal Response and Next Steps
DHS maintains that its actions are lawful and centered on enforcing federal immigration law. A spokesperson cited constitutional authority and denied allegations that federal agents have unlawfully acted or targeted communities unfairly. Federal officials have also signaled plans to deploy even more agents to Minnesota in the coming days.
The case will now proceed in federal court, likely raising important questions about the balance of power between federal immigration enforcement and state and local governance. A judge’s decision on the requested restraining order could shape how — and where — large-scale immigration operations are conducted in the future.