Minnesota, Trump administration clash over future of immigration surge suit

State officials are determined to keep their suit alive despite the government's withdrawal of agents months ago.MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — Months after thousands of federal agents wrapped up a controversial winter of immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities, Minnesota and the Trump administration returned to court Wednesday to debate whether the state’s lawsuit over the surge should be thrown out.Seeking a dismissal, the federal government told U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez Minnesota lacks legal standing now that Operation Metro Surge has drawn down.The state argued nothing is stopping the government from returning to Minnesota and engaging in the same “unlawful actions” that plagued its citizens earlier this year.“If they start up these policies again, we know what’s going to happen because they’ve done it before, and there’s a very small list of cities that they are intending to target,” Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney Heather Robertson said. “It is not purely speculative to say they will come here again.”Menendez seemed at least inclined to agree, noting the Justice Department’s unwillingness to bring a mootness argument stating the surge will not return.“There is no suggestion that your clients have stopped any of this or that they pledge not to resume it,” the Joe Biden appointee said to the DOJ attorneys. “The challenge that you have is you’re trying to use standing to accomplish what you’re not willing to put on the table to satisfy mootness.”Still, Menendez voiced skepticism over whether Minnesota could prove ongoing and imminent harm long after the main deployment ended.“This interpretation of declaratory judgment claims completely swallows the imminence and immediacy of the risk of future harm,” she said. “It feels like this would allow cases to go forward no matter how long after something is over.”Minnesota brought its initial suit in January — just days after the federal officer-involved killing of Renee Nicole Good — seeking an immediate halt of Operation Metro Surge and a declaration that the government’s actions were unlawful.The surge saw thousands of masked federal agents descend on the Twin Cities beginning in December 2025 in what Homeland Security called the largest immigration enforcement action in U.S. history.While the federal government claimed the operation targeted noncitizens with criminal records, local leaders and civil rights groups argued the true intent was political retaliation against “sanctuary” jurisdictions not adhering to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.“They are asking you to ignore all of the allegations that [Operation Metro Surge] was a vehicle to coerce and commandeer, and are asking this court to find as a matter of factual dispute that everything about [Operation Metro Surge] was a lawful immigration enforcement operation,” Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Lindsey Middlecamp said Wednesday.Menendez repeatedly pressed Justice Department attorneys on that point, questioning why claims of coercion shouldn’t survive a motion to dismiss.“There could be extreme ultra vires conduct from the government,” Menendez said. “I’m supposed to accept their allegations as true, and they allege a multi-front effort by the administration to try and enforce compliance from the state and local municipalities to the executive’s stance on immigration enforcement.”The Trump administration countered that Minnesota’s 10th Amendment, equal sovereignty and First Amendment claims fail on their merits, arguing immigration enforcement does not infringe upon state police powers and the state provides little direct evidence of political retaliation.To support its claims of coercion and economic fallout, Minnesota shifted its legal strategy this spring. After failing to secure an initial preliminary injunction, the state filed an amended complaint in April that moved from predicting harms to detailing realized damage.Minnesota claims the state lost over $600 million in business revenue and $240 million in wages throughout the surge across the Twin Cities and expanded its factual record to include a string of subsequent violent events after the initial lawsuit was filed, including the shootings of Alex Pretti and Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis.The government argues downstream, indirect financial costs and generalized public fear are legally insufficient to confer standing, insisting states cannot sue the federal government on behalf of their citizens.Given the operation in Minnesota has long since ended, the state now seeks a permanent judgment ruling the baseline policy underlying the surge was unconstitutional — one that would permanently bar future masked agent policies, racial profiling and roving patrols in the area.“This is not a country where the government gets to go up to random people and say ‘show me your papers,’” Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Brian Carter said.A key friction point remains the revocation of Homeland Security’s internal “sensitive locations” guidance, which previously restricted most enforcement near schools, places of worship and courthouses — all areas that saw increased enforcement in Minnesota.Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers asserted blocking or vacating the 2025 sensitive locations guidance would not stop federal agents from arresting people at those locations, as an independent statutory basis remains.“Officers still retain statutory discretion, and we think the same is true for the sensitive locations policy,” Mayers said. “There is no legal constraint on the use of legal discretion at sensitive locations.”While the number of federal agents in Minnesota has dropped significantly throughout the year, the state still claims the threat of enforcement remains, and the remaining agents are likely adhering to unlawful policies.“The threat is ongoing,” Robertson said. “They are trying to coerce us to adopt their immigration policies, and they are trying to punish us for adopting policies that disagree.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads