Legal Showdown Over Federal Immigration Enforcement in Minnesota

Mon Feb 02 2026 16:51:07 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

The Trump administration is pushing back against a lawsuit aimed at halting immigration sweeps in Minnesota, asserting the legality of its federal operations while local officials argue constitutional violations.

In the wake of public unrest following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an immigration officer, the Trump administration is advocating for federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota, arguing that the state's lawsuit against such operations lacks legal merit. As local attorneys assert violations of constitutional rights, the situation raises critical questions about the balance of state and federal powers in immigration enforcement. Ongoing tensions and protests indicate growing concerns among residents regarding federal actions and their transparency.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Trump administration is urging a judge to reject efforts by Minnesota and its largest cities to stop the immigration enforcement surge that has roiled Minneapolis and St. Paul for weeks.

The Justice Department has termed the lawsuit, which emerged shortly after the controversial fatal shooting of Renee Good by an immigration officer, as 'legally frivolous.' Attorneys maintain that the Department of Homeland Security is operating within its legal bounds to enforce immigration laws.

According to federal filings, Operation Metro Surge has purportedly increased state safety, leading to the arrest of over 3,000 individuals without legal status. 'Put simply, Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement,' Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Countering this stance, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison asserts that the government is infringing upon constitutional rights, claiming that the implementation of armed officers has been poorly managed and calling for an end to what he describes as an 'invasion.'

Filed on January 12, the lawsuit seeks to limit or halt current enforcement actions. The outcome remains uncertain as additional filings are expected, with U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez yet to make a ruling.

Ilan Wurman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, expressed skepticism regarding the state's arguments' viability, reiterating that federal law supersedes state law and underscoring the powers of the federal government to enforce immigration policy.

Advocates, such as Julia Decker from the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, have voiced concerns about a lack of transparency surrounding the government's arrest statistics, emphasizing that U.S. citizens have been mistakenly detained amidst the enforcement activities.

In a separate ruling, Menendez emphasized that federal officers are prohibited from detaining peaceful protesters who are not obstructing law enforcement operations.

The controversial shooting of Renee Good on January 7 has ignited public outcry, with multiple protests erupting against immigration officers. Tension has escalated as officers resorted to tear gas and chemical agents against demonstrators. President Trump has hinted at deploying troops to Minnesota, citing an 1807 law, although his administration's position appears to have moderated subsequently.