A judge considers Minnesota’s bid to halt an expanded federal immigration enforcement effort as tensions rise between state leaders and the Trump administration over a dramatic increase in federal agents operating in the Twin Cities.
On Jan. 26, a federal judge listened to urgent arguments from Minnesota officials seeking to immediately block the deployment of thousands of federal immigration agents sent into the region over the past two months. The state and several local governments argue that the operation—known as Operation Metro Surge—has crossed constitutional lines and destabilized public safety.
Attorneys for Minnesota contend that the large-scale buildup of federal immigration agents violates state sovereignty and runs afoul of the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states that are not explicitly granted to the federal government. They say the surge amounts to federal overreach, pressuring the state to abandon laws and policies that protect local authority.
“This past weekend showed, in a frightening way, that the situation cannot continue,” said attorney Sara Lathrop, referencing the Jan. 24 shooting of a U.S. citizen by a Border Patrol agent. She argued that while the legal questions are complex, immediate relief is necessary to de-escalate tensions and prevent further harm. “We need action now,” she told the court, “so these issues can be resolved without more people getting hurt.”
Justice Department lawyers pushed back, defending Operation Metro Surge as a lawful effort to enforce federal immigration statutes. They accused Minnesota of adopting so-called sanctuary policies that, in their view, interfere with federal detention and deportation efforts. According to the government, those policies justify a heightened federal law enforcement presence.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, who presided over the hearing, carefully examined both sides and raised concerns about the limits of her authority. She questioned whether a district court injunction was the right tool to resolve a dispute rooted in separation of powers between state and federal governments.
“Not every crisis has a solution that comes from a district court injunction,” Menendez said from the bench. She emphasized that all branches of government are meant to respect both separation of powers and the federalist balance between Washington and the states. Relying on a single court order, she noted, could be unrealistic—especially when any ruling would almost certainly be appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Menendez acknowledged that even if she granted a preliminary injunction, it would likely face immediate appellate review. Given the stakes and the national implications, she ended the hearing without issuing a ruling, saying it was critical to proceed carefully and “get it right.”
Plaintiffs Seek to End Operation Metro Surge
Representing the city of Minneapolis, attorney Brian Carter urged the court to shut down Operation Metro Surge entirely and restore what he called the previous “status quo” of federal law enforcement activity. He argued that the Trump administration is using the agent surge as leverage to force Minnesota to dismantle its sanctuary policies—an approach he said violates the 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.
That doctrine, Carter explained, prevents the federal government from compelling states to pass specific laws or to use state resources to enforce federal regulatory programs. “We’re asking the court to apply the Constitution as written,” he said, “and stop the federal government from coercing the state into changing its laws or redirecting its resources.”
Carter pointed to a Jan. 24 letter sent by Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as evidence of that pressure. In the letter, Bondi accused Minnesota of refusing to enforce federal law and demanded that the governor support Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, repeal sanctuary policies, and share sensitive state data, including information on Medicaid recipients, food assistance programs, and voter rolls.
The plaintiffs argue that these demands amount to unconstitutional coercion, forcing Minnesota to rewrite its laws under threat of continued federal enforcement escalation. The Justice Department, by contrast, maintains that Minnesota’s policies themselves conflict with federal immigration statutes.
Judge Menendez pressed the government on this point, asking whether the surge would end if Minnesota immediately complied with the administration’s demands. Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers said he could not make specific promises but acknowledged that a policy change by the state could alter the federal response.
Menendez then asked whether Bondi’s letter explicitly tied compliance to ending the agent surge—and whether such a linkage would effectively force the state and local governments to change their laws. Mayers denied that the letter was coercive, framing it instead as an explanation for why federal officials believe additional enforcement is necessary in Minnesota.
The judge appeared unconvinced. She noted that Minnesota was not challenging federal immigration law as a whole, but rather a single enforcement initiative—the unprecedented concentration of federal agents in the Twin Cities. Before adjourning, Menendez asked the Justice Department to provide a precise count of how many federal agents are currently deployed in the state, signaling that the scope of the operation will play a key role in her eventual decision.
