Federal Judge Rejects Immediate Halt on ICE Operations in Minnesota, Sets Tight Deadlines Amid Escalating Tensions

By Perplexity News Staff

Minneapolis, MN – A federal judge on Wednesday declined Minnesota’s urgent request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the state but established strict deadlines for further proceedings, keeping the door open for future restrictions.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez presided over a status conference in the lawsuit filed by the State of Minnesota, alongside the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE. The plaintiffs seek to declare the federal agency’s “Operation Metro Surge” unconstitutional and unlawful, citing widespread disruption, racial profiling, and excessive force.[2][3]

Background of the Lawsuit

The legal action, filed on January 12, 2026, by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, targets what plaintiffs describe as an “unprecedented surge” of thousands of armed, masked DHS agents into the Twin Cities area. Launched in December 2025 under the Trump administration, the operation has been labeled the “largest immigration operation ever” by ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations leader.[1][4]

Complaints detail raids on job sites, warrantless arrests, detentions of U.S. citizens, school lockdowns, business closures, and massive overtime costs for local police. Minneapolis Police reported over 3,000 overtime hours by January 9, with costs exceeding $2 million for just a few days.[3] One incident involved DHS agents detaining a Minnesota-born man of Mexican descent for over six hours at a Richfield Target store.[4]

“The unlawful deployment of thousands of armed, masked, and poorly trained federal agents is hurting Minnesota,” Ellison stated. “People are being racially profiled, harassed, terrorized, and assaulted.” The suit alleges violations of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves policing powers to states, and the Administrative Procedure Act’s ban on arbitrary agency actions.[3][4]

Court Hearing Details

During the January 14 hearing, DOJ attorneys urged treating the case like a preliminary injunction rather than an emergency TRO, arguing for more time to respond. Brian Carter from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office countered that “harm is actively occurring, in fact escalating,” demanding immediate intervention.[1]

Judge Menendez declined the TRO, explaining there wasn’t sufficient time to evaluate the merits or the federal government’s position. “That should not be taken as a prejudgment of the merits,” she cautioned, noting the issues involve “grave and important matters” and “frontier issues in constitutional law.”[2]

Deadlines were set: The federal government must respond by Monday, January 19, with Minnesota’s reply due Thursday, January 22. Oral arguments are expected before month’s end, and the state plans a protective order soon.[1][2]

Ongoing ICE Presence and Protests

ICE agents maintained their presence across Minnesota on January 14, a week after a fatal shooting of Renee Nicole by an ICE officer, intensifying protests and tensions. Local leaders scheduled a noon press event to decry “escalating lawless and reckless” activity and announce community briefings.[1]

The operation, justified by officials like DHS head Kristi Noem as targeting “unprecedented” fraud via door-to-door investigations, has instead involved broad sweeps at workplaces and sensitive locations, plaintiffs claim.[4]

Broader Implications

This case highlights deepening federal-state clashes over immigration enforcement. Minnesota’s coalition argues DHS has commandeered local resources, forcing police to manage fallout from federal actions. Discovery may include ICE training materials, though DOJ resists quick disclosure.[1]

As proceedings advance, communities brace for continued operations. KSTP and other outlets are tracking developments, with local authorities urging residents to stay informed via social media.[2]

Plaintiffs’ Demands

• Declare ICE surge unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.
• Issue TRO to immediately halt operations.
• Enjoin warrantless arrests, excessive force, and targeting of sensitive locations.
• Compel disclosure of agent training and operational details.[3][4]

The lawsuit names defendants including ICE’s Saint Paul Field Office head and Noem in their official capacities, framing the surge as politically motivated against Minnesota.[4]

While no immediate relief came, the expedited timeline signals judicial seriousness. A later TRO remains possible, potentially reshaping federal enforcement in sanctuary-leaning states.

For ongoing coverage, follow updates from local news sources as the January 19 deadline approaches.