Federal judge pauses ruling on Minnesota immigration sweeps amid legal fight

A federal judge in Minneapolis declined Wednesday to immediately halt an intensified federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, instead giving the federal government time to respond to a lawsuit that seeks to suspend the deployment while courts consider its legality. U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez set deadlines for additional briefing and said she needed more time to evaluate the parties before deciding whether to issue emergency relief.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed the suit alleging an unlawful "federal invasion"—a surge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents operating in the state—and asked for a temporary restraining order to stop current operations. State and local officials contend the deployment constitutes an improper federal law enforcement presence that undermines local authority and public trust.

Menendez described the matters before her as “grave and important matters” and “somewhat frontier issues in constitutional law,” and cautioned that her decision to delay should not be read as a prejudgment of either side’s case. The judge said she was hesitant to award emergency relief without first hearing the federal government’s position on whether such a restraining order would fall within the scope of her powers.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended the enforcement action. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of putting “politics over public safety.” Government attorneys argued the court should allow time for a full response rather than resolve emergency relief on a compressed schedule.

The federal operation has been marked by confrontations and aggressive tactics, according to reporting from multiple sources. Officials say federal agents have carried out more than 2,000 arrests in Minnesota since early December, and an ICE officer fatally shot Renee Good on Jan. 7 as she drove away, an incident that has intensified protests and scrutiny of the deployment. Images and accounts show agents detaining people outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building and clashes between agents and angry bystanders, with protesters responding to the operation with tear gas, chemical irritants and protest whistles.

Local leaders have sharply criticized federal conduct and targeting. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told Fox News that “what we see right now is discrimination taking place only on the basis of race: Are you Latino or are you Somali? And then it is indiscriminate thereafter,” adding that federal agents have pulled U.S. citizens off the streets and that such actions have been “very well documented.”

Separately, the Pentagon has been searching for military lawyers to assist the federal deployment in Minnesota, a development that highlights the operation’s legal and logistical complexity as multiple federal components engage with local communities and face litigation. Details remain sparse on how many military lawyers are sought and the precise scope of their expected roles, but the move raises institutional questions about the use of military legal resources to support domestic law enforcement activities.

Beyond the immediate legal contest, the dispute underscores broader policy and constitutional fault lines between federal authority and state and local policing powers. The court’s next procedural steps will test limits on federal deployments inside states, the accountability framework for federal agents operating in communities, and the capacity of civic institutions to manage public safety while protecting civil liberties. Menendez’s cautious approach signals that the court intends to weigh those stakes carefully before altering operations on the ground.