A federal court in Minneapolis is currently evaluating whether the deployment of 3,000 immigration agents by the Trump administration in Minnesota constitutes an unconstitutional occupation rather than legitimate law enforcement. During a hearing held on Monday, Judge Kate Menendez, appointed by President Biden, directed the federal government to respond to claims asserting that the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge” was designed to retaliate against local governments implementing sanctuary laws.
The legal arguments focus on the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government for the states. Minnesota officials alongside the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul contend that the intrusive nature of Operation Metro Surge effectively amounts to an illegal occupation. They are seeking an immediate cessation of this operation, citing that it has instilled fear among residents, jeopardized public safety, and hindered local officials in fulfilling their responsibilities, such as maintaining policing and school operations.
The urgency of the case has heightened following the recent fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse and U.S. citizen, who was reportedly killed by federal agents during an immigration operation. This incident, corroborated by video evidence, contradicts claims made by the Department of Homeland Security and marks the third shooting involving federal agents in the month.
During the courtroom proceedings, state attorney Lindsey Middlecamp characterized the federal presence as an “unlawful and unchecked invasion,” drawing attention to the tragic Pretti incident. Middlecamp claimed that Operation Metro Surge utilized aggressive tactics and racial profiling, while also alleging retaliatory actions against businesses and critics of the operation. The state, represented by its legal team, is arguing that the Trump administration’s approach is an unlawful coercion of state resources, attempting to influence local policies through intimidation rather than through the judicial system.
A notable point of contention involves a letter from attorney general Pam Bondi, interpreted by the state as an extortion attempt that breaches the 10th Amendment by linking the cessation of Operation Metro Surge to demands for access to voter registration records and the repeal of sanctuary policies—issues they argue are irrelevant to immigration enforcement.
Judge Menendez grappled with the complexities of delineating between lawful federal pressure and illegal coercion, questioning what legal basis might allow her to intervene against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations within the state. Legal experts suggest Minnesota’s argument expands upon existing anti-commandeering concepts, emphasizing the need to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach.
While Minnesota seeks to halt the aggressive surge, it does not wish for a complete cessation of immigration enforcement, but rather a return to previous staffing levels and restrictions on operational protocols for remaining federal agents. Trump administration lawyers, however, defend the operation as a lawful implementation of immigration laws, highlighting that it has led to the apprehension of individuals with serious criminal convictions.
This case represents a significant legal challenge, as precedents for states contesting federal law enforcement on 10th Amendment grounds remain limited. Notably, a similar lawsuit has emerged in Illinois, aiming to impede immigration enforcement absent explicit congressional approval. With the Minnesota court hearing this critical case, the plaintiffs argue that further delays could lead to more tragic instances similar to the recent shootings, intensifying the call for judicial intervention and protection for local citizens. The outcome may have broad implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities in immigration enforcement.