A federal judge in Minnesota on Saturday refused to issue an order to halt a sweeping immigration enforcement operation that state officials had challenged in court on civil rights grounds.
U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez in Minneapolis said the Minnesota Attorney General's Office presented compelling evidence that the tactics used by immigration agents - including shootings and instances that the state described as racial profiling - have led to "profound and even heartbreaking consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans."
Still, Menendez noted a recent decision by a federal appeals court that set aside a far narrower injunction limiting some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tactics in Minnesota. The judge wrote that if that narrower order had been overbroad, then a request to stop the entire operation would be even more so.
"If that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here - halting the entire operation - certainly would," the judge wrote.
Menendez, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, declined to grant the relief the state sought. The lawsuit attempted to block or significantly constrain a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation that deployed thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The federal surge prompted weeks of street protests and was followed by the killings of two U.S. citizens by federal agents, incidents that are central to the state's legal claims.
Reacting to the court's decision, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X that the ruling represented a "HUGE" victory for the Justice Department. In her post she argued that neither sanctuary policies nor what she called meritless litigation would prevent the Trump Administration from enforcing federal immigration law in Minnesota.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison alleged that federal agents engaged in racial profiling, unlawfully detained lawful residents for hours, and created fear through heavy-handed tactics. Ellison also accused the Trump administration of singling out Minnesota because of political animus toward its Democratic leadership.
The Trump administration has said the deployment was intended to enforce federal immigration statutes in line with the president's policies. Some administration officials indicated the surge could be scaled back if Minnesota agreed to certain demands, including ending particular legal protections for people living in the United States without legal authorization.
Tensions in the Twin Cities escalated after two high-profile deadly encounters. On January 7, Renee Good was shot in her car by a federal immigration agent in an episode captured by bystander video. On January 24, Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti; bystander footage of that incident showed he had been disarmed, according to the material referenced in the state's filings. Those killings intensified public outcry and prompted calls for criminal prosecutions of the agents involved.
The federal government has defended the agents involved in both fatal encounters, saying they acted in self-defense. At the same time, officials at the federal level declined to cooperate with local law enforcement investigations into the deaths, a point raised by state authorities in their challenge.
Officials from different levels of government have engaged in limited, public efforts to reduce tensions. President Trump and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said they held a conversation earlier in the week that they described as productive in terms of de-escalating the situation.
The deployment in Minneapolis-St. Paul is part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of sending federal law enforcement officers to cities and jurisdictions governed largely by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon. The president has maintained that such deployments are necessary to enforce immigration laws and address crime, while critics contend they represent an abuse of federal power.
Length and limitations: The court ruling leaves the DHS operation in place while legal challenges continue. The state presented substantial allegations of civil rights harms, but the judge determined that a sweeping halt to the entire operation would exceed the relief warranted in light of recent appellate action.