A showdown over the scope of federal immigration enforcement played out in Minneapolis on Monday, January 26, 2026, as U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez heard arguments in the lawsuit that Minnesota, Minneapolis and Saint Paul have filed to halt “Operation Metro Surge.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deployed roughly 3,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers to the Twin Cities on December 1, saying the crackdown is needed to arrest undocumented immigrants with criminal records.
State Solicitor General Liz Kramer contended that the surge amounts to an unconstitutional occupation that is crippling local policing, shuttering schools and businesses, and terrorizing lawful residents after several high-profile shootings, including the death of U.S.-citizen nurse Alex Pretti during a protest last weekend. Kramer argued that DHS is using the deployment to coerce Minnesota into turning over voter rolls and welfare data and to force the state to abandon “sanctuary” policies—demands the state says violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.
![Federal Judge Questions ICE’s 3,000-Agent ‘Operation Metro Surge’ in Minnesota]()
Judge Menendez signaled skepticism about the government’s position, repeatedly asking DOJ lawyers why Minnesota needs 3,000 agents when neighboring Illinois averaged fewer than 200 ICE arrests a month last year. She compared the clash to the Supreme Court’s 1997 Printz decision limiting federal commandeering of state officials and suggested the court could order DHS to scale the surge back to pre-December levels pending a full trial.
Justice Department attorney Isabel Barrón defended the operation as a lawful exercise of Congress’s plenary power over immigration, insisting that ICE is targeting only “public-safety threats” and that any collateral impact on state resources is “incidental.” Barrón warned that judicial interference would create a dangerous precedent by allowing states to nullify federal immigration law whenever enforcement proves politically unpopular.
A ruling on Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order is expected within days. Whatever Judge Menendez decides, legal scholars say the case could fast-track to the Eighth Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, with major implications for how far a future administration can go in forcing local cooperation with aggressive immigration sweeps.
State Solicitor General Liz Kramer contended that the surge amounts to an unconstitutional occupation that is crippling local policing, shuttering schools and businesses, and terrorizing lawful residents after several high-profile shootings, including the death of U.S.-citizen nurse Alex Pretti during a protest last weekend. Kramer argued that DHS is using the deployment to coerce Minnesota into turning over voter rolls and welfare data and to force the state to abandon “sanctuary” policies—demands the state says violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.
Judge Menendez signaled skepticism about the government’s position, repeatedly asking DOJ lawyers why Minnesota needs 3,000 agents when neighboring Illinois averaged fewer than 200 ICE arrests a month last year. She compared the clash to the Supreme Court’s 1997 Printz decision limiting federal commandeering of state officials and suggested the court could order DHS to scale the surge back to pre-December levels pending a full trial.
Justice Department attorney Isabel Barrón defended the operation as a lawful exercise of Congress’s plenary power over immigration, insisting that ICE is targeting only “public-safety threats” and that any collateral impact on state resources is “incidental.” Barrón warned that judicial interference would create a dangerous precedent by allowing states to nullify federal immigration law whenever enforcement proves politically unpopular.
A ruling on Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order is expected within days. Whatever Judge Menendez decides, legal scholars say the case could fast-track to the Eighth Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, with major implications for how far a future administration can go in forcing local cooperation with aggressive immigration sweeps.
Source: The Guardian / New York Post
