Federal Judge Denies Bid to Halt ICE Surge in Minnesota
Granting the injunction, Menendez wrote, would “harm the federal government’s efforts to enforce federal immigration laws.”
A federal judge on Saturday denied an emergency request from Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to block a large-scale surge of federal immigration enforcement agents, allowing the Trump administration’s Operation Metro Surge to continue despite weeks of unrest, multiple shootings, and mounting legal challenges.
The ruling came as state and local officials argued that the deployment of roughly 3,000 federal agents violated state sovereignty and amounted to unlawful coercion. The court was unpersuaded.
“Plaintiffs have provided no metric by which to determine when lawful law enforcement becomes unlawful commandeering,” U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez wrote, adding that a claim the operation had gone “so far on the other side of the line” was insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction.
According to The New York Times, Judge Menendez concluded that Minnesota failed to meet the legal burden required to temporarily halt federal enforcement, even as she acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the dispute and the real-world consequences tied to the surge.
The lawsuit was filed after a series of shootings involving federal agents in Minneapolis, including the deaths of two U.S. citizens and the injury of a Venezuelan national alleged to be in the country illegally. State attorneys urged the court to intervene immediately, describing the operation as an “invasion” that had destabilized the Twin Cities.
“Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that Operation Metro Surge has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities and Minnesotans,” the judge wrote, while still declining to grant the injunction.
Local coverage emphasized that the ruling was narrow and procedural, not a final judgment on the legality of the enforcement campaign itself.
Judge Menendez stressed that her decision “does not make a final determination on the state’s claim” and is not a ruling on “the legality of specific actions taken by federal agents.”
The Trump administration defended the operation as a lawful exercise of federal authority, arguing that blocking the surge would undermine immigration enforcement nationwide.
Granting the injunction, Menendez wrote, would “harm the federal government’s efforts to enforce federal immigration laws,” concluding that Minnesota had not clearly shown how federal discretion crossed a constitutional line.
While the surge remains in place for now, the broader legal fight is far from over. Judge Menendez ordered additional briefing from the federal government, signaling that scrutiny of Operation Metro Surge, and its political and constitutional implications, is likely to continue as tensions in Minnesota remain high.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
She’s a Biden appointee. Don’t take much from her tenuous decision.
I don’t care who appointed her. It’s a reasonable decision. It’s possible that the ICE surge is not really intended purely to enforce the law but is in fact intended to punish MN for standing on its constitutional rights. But I can’t imagine how the state could go about proving it, and it’s certainly not the most obvious explanation for the facts on the ground. As the judge said, if what you’re saying were the case, how could you tell?
Minnesota does not have a constitutional right to impede federal immigration law enforcement.
It has a constitutional right to refuse to assist in such enforcement. And it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to do anything to punish it for such refusal, or to try to coerce it into assisting.
This is beyond all dispute. But the state is alleging that that’s what Trump is doing, and as the judge said, that’s not the most obvious explanation for the facts, and if Trump were doing that how could you tell?
Are you a judicial activist, or what makes you think you have the right to dunk on people the way you do? Your schtick is getting old.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you on drugs, or just incapable of understanding plain English? What makes you think you have the right to babble like that, making no sense and completely ignoring all facts and reason?
Since lawful enforcement of federal law by definition doesn’t harm the State (the States agreed, upon admission to the Union, that the federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over immigration and border control per the Constitution, and consented to the federal government’s authority to enforce its laws as it see fit), there is simply no “punishment” occurring and no punishment that could occur.
Additionally, ICE operations are not aimed at the State nor any of its officials. They are directed at private individuals who have violated US law. If the State is claiming it has the authority to provide those persons with sanctuary, and that attempts to breach or nullify that sanctuary is harm done to the State, I’d like to see the State articulate such nonsense.
They didn’t, actually. There is nothing in the constitution about this, and for the first 100 years of the republic no one thought Congress had such a power. But that’s water under the bridge. For the past 150 years it’s been accepted that Congress does have plenary power over immigration, and it’s far too late to challenge that.
Nonetheless, it is certainly possible for a surge of enforcement activity in a state to be intended as a punishment to that state for defying the federal government’s will. And if that were the case it would be unconstitutional. The problem is how could one possibly prove it. How would such a punitive surge differ from a legitimate one motivated only by a genuine desire to enforce the law? It’s not enough, at least at this stage of the proceedings, for MN to simply claim this is happening and be believed. It has to prove its allegations, and it’s unlikely to be able to do so even if they’re true, which we have no reason to believe.
Border and immigration control have, since ancient times, been the prerogative of the sovereign. A foreigner needed leave to enter the sovereign’s realm. The sovereign could resist invasion (unlawful forced entry) and could eject entire populations at will (even those that may have been considered “citizens” at one time). Because the federal government was meant to be the sovereign with regard to entities (governments and persons) outside the United States, Congress (at least, if not also the Executive) has authority over immigration and border control, a fact most recently asserted and confirmed in Arizona vs United States. Congress has the explicit authority to “provide for the common Defence…of the United States” and to “repel invasions,” both clearly establishing Congress’ authority over border security/control. The States’ authority over their own borders (which includes, in some instances, external borders) is limited to particular circumstances – “No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” This is permissive, imposing no obligations upon the States such as the Constitution imposes on Congress.
Any “surge of enforcement activities,” when it is both an exercise of lawful authority and a response to actual criminal activities is a legitimate activity even if it should be intended as punishment because “punishment” and “legitimate” are not mutually exclusive. If they were, then the first State to experience such could always claim “political punishment” and halt the execution of the law. The next State and the next could do the same. Still, if it’s legitimate, any “punishment” (intended or not) is irrelevant because the POTUS has the duty to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” There is no “butt hurt” exception to this obligation. Certainly, a State cannot create or encourage conditions making it impossible for the POTUS to “faithfully execute the laws” without reacting to those conditions (the “surge”) and then claim the reaction is “punishment” when it was necessary to fulfill a constitutional obligation.
the injury of a Venezuelan national alleged to be in the country illegally
Wrong. Did he not have a deportation order? Then he was KNOWN to be in the country illegally.
Or is this some other “Venezuelan national“?
The lawsuit from Minnesota is no different than if Mississippi had sued in 1964 to stop the FBI from pursuing the KKK after the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner.
Good on the judge for smacking it down.
A deportation order is an allegation by the executive branch. The person is still entitled to habeas corpus, i.e. to have the executive prove its case to a neutral finder-of-fact. As the appeals court in the Khalil case said, the person only gets this right after there is a final deportation order.
Prove what case? If an illegal was given a deportation order he is removed, that’s why immigration orders are by Article 2courts
Everyone is entitled to habeas corpus. Every deportation order is subject to review by a real court. Article 2 “courts” are not courts; they are just the president deciding what he wants to do. The judiciary then gets to hear any legal challenges to that decision.
Article 2 courts are, indeed courts.
Article III, sec 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Article II immigration courts were established with the same authority granted to Congress to create so-called “real” courts, making the immigration courts just as “real.” They are merely limited in their subject matter jurisdiction.
Persons illegally in the country have no liberty interest in remaining in the country (as no bank robber has any property interest in the loot taken from a bank). Deportation isn’t punishment for a crime. (If the police remove an intruder from your home, is that “punishment” for the intrusion?)
The Constitution says habeas can’t be suspended (except under very particular conditions). It doesn’t say that everyone is entitled to it.
According to Google AI:
Grounds for Filing
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus can be filed to challenge unlawful detention or imprisonment on various grounds, including:
Detention without charges: Being held without being formally charged with a crime.
Violation of federal rights: Arguing that the prosecution or detention violated federally protected rights.
Unconstitutional conviction: Challenging the constitutionality of a state court conviction in federal court.
Generally, persons being detained for having entered the country illegally, are held temporarily pending deportation, and don’t qualify to file for the writ. (As I said above, not everyone is entitled to it.)
They are charged with violations of immigration laws
Prosecution or detention for violation of immigration laws isn’t a violation of federally protected rights
There is no conviction to challenge (and none is required because deportation isn’t punishment)
The Article II immigration court is an administrative court, given the authority by Congress to dispose of matters related to immigration (duh). They provide the “due process” Congress believes is appropriate for persons in the country illegally (and therefore without any liberty interest in remaining in the country).
No, they are not. They are under the president’s direct authority, and therefore cannot be courts.
That is Article 3, as you will surely have noticed. Courts are established under Article 3, not Article 2. Any “court” established under Article 2 is by definition a pretend court.
No, they are not. Congress can’t do that. The judicial power, the entire judicial power, belongs to the judicial branch. Neither the legislative branch nor the executive branch can exercise it, in any way.
And there’s the rub. Only the judicial branch can decide whether someone is here legally or illegally, because only it can say what the law is and how it applies to any given case. The executive branch can allege that someone is here illegally, but it has to prove it to a court.
That is the right of habeas corpus, which by definition is available to everyone. (Except prisoners of war, but even they are entitled to a limited form of habeas in order to determine whether they are POWs. The executive can’t merely allege that they are and have its allegation taken as fact.)
Also, if the decision to seek a deportation order against someone was made in order to punish him for his speech, then it’s unconstitutional and must be overturned. Again, that is for the judicial branch to decide, not the executive branch.
Seriously, is your memory so short that you’ve already forgotten the appeals court decision on Mahmoud Khalil, less than two weeks ago? That decision clearly said that he does have the right to a hearing before a real court, but only after there’s a final deportation order. So why are you arguing?
The executive branch is incapable by definition of giving anyone due process of law. And it’s not up to Congress to decide what due process is “appropriate”; it’s a constitutional right that Congress can’t interfere with.
Milhouse,
Then by your logic the military can’t have its own courts including the Court of Military Appeals where the only access to a ‘real court’ (ART III CT) is IF and Only If SCOTUS grants Cert. Yes the military is a subgroup, so are aliens. Yes the Constitution grants Congress power to regulate, create rules of conduct for the military…. just as the Constitution grants the Congress power over Naturalization and immigration.
Either Art II courts are valid or they ain’t. IMO they are entirely valid and an individual who has received a final order from an Art II CT can then go to ART III Federal CT with habeas petition but that could be rejected by the CT.
I’d say everyone is entitled to file a motion for habeas corpus in the appropriate venue at the appropriate stage, after all other steps exhausted, but whether that motion was accepted or rejected is a different question.
This is in response to your reply to my comment about Article II courts.
I knew you would make that claim (about Congress’ authority in Article III). But the grant doesn’t say Congress can’t establish anything but Article III courts, it grants Congress the authority to make courts (any courts), period. (Although it can’t make a court equal to or with more authority than SCOTUS, being limited to making courts “inferior” to – but not necessarily answering to – SCOTUS.)
CommoChief makes a great point about military courts. I believe he conclusively rebutted your claim no courts other than Article III courts are “real courts.” I’ll remark further that I said the Immigration Court doesn’t convict or punish (I suspect illegal aliens are charged in order to make their detention legal, and to prevent their applications for habeas writs based on claims of detention without charges), but a military tribunal most certainly does convict and punish. Yet by your argument, it isn’t even a “real court.” How can this be? Well, it can’t. It’s a very real Article II court. So is the Immigration Court.
I know how the process is working, but it makes no sense. If the person receiving a deportation order can appeal to an Article III court, what is the purpose of having a separate Immigration Court? To remove the burden of immigration hearings from the Article III courts? That makes zero sense. Just assign the same personnel in the Immigration Court system to the Federal District Courts and limit their authority to immigration matters. Problem solved. This would also resolve the legal questions that are now swirling around immigration enforcement. Do you think Congress didn’t consider these matters? Maybe they didn’t, but I think a more logical answer to the question is that they didn’t consider these potential problems because they believed they were creating a “real court,” the authority of which would be as valid as that of any other “real” Article III court.
Unmentioned in this opinion is the salient fact that decades of the vile Dhimmi-crats’ brazen flouting, undermining of and sabotaging of, federal immigration laws, combined with the Dhimmi-crats’ brazen incitement to, and, engaging in, terrorism and insurrection, are the sole factors in creating the “heartbreaking” consequences upon Minnesota, that the judge references.
Dhimmi-crats are the culprits throughout this entire narrative/sage, going back decades.
“narrative/saga”
Heartbreaking!!! What does that have to do with anything. Either the federal government actions are lawful (they are) or they’re not.
Wait! A federal judge ruled the right way? Expect impeachment proceedings against this hapless fool momentarily.
What a ridiculous argument.
MN: We refuse to help you do your job. If you want it done, you’ll have to do it yourselves.
USA: Very well, we’ve read the constitution too, and we respect your right to refuse, so we will do as you say and enforce our own damn laws.
MN: Coercion!!!!
MN: We refuse to help you do your job. If you want it done, you’ll have to do it yourselves.
USA: “If you want a job done right, you have to do it yourself”
Leave a Comment