Federal immigration agents in Minnesota stopped people without warrants and, in many cases, for no reason other than race or ethnicity, a federal judge ruled Monday. U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud found that agents singled out Somali and Latino residents, concluding that out of 33 firsthand accounts, 17 people were detained "based solely on their race or ethnicity" and 23 were stopped without the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. Despite those findings, Tostrud declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have immediately curtailed the enforcement practices.
Judge's findings and evidence
In a 111-page opinion, Tostrud described how officers approached people on the street or pulled them over in their vehicles and requested identification without any explanation. In many of those encounters, he wrote, "the only salient factor in these cases was the individual's race or ethnicity," according to the U.S. District Court's written findings. He also denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification after reviewing dozens of declarations and live testimony, noting that the court record showed many stops were carried out without objective justification. U.S. District Court
How the lawsuit began
The case was brought in January by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Minnesota on behalf of three named Minnesotans and roughly 30 declarants who said they were stopped or arrested during "Operation Metro Surge," according to the ACLU's filing and press release. Plaintiffs laid out dozens of incidents, from a man grabbed while walking to the mosque to a Target delivery driver who says he was tackled, that the ACLU says show a pattern of racial profiling and warrantless seizures. ACLU of Minnesota
Judge: government explanations were pretextual
Tostrud wrote that many of the government's justifications for stops were "pretextual and senseless" and found agents frequently had no objective basis for their actions. He emphasized that a person's failure to produce documents on the spot "does not retroactively give immigration agents cause to stop them." The judge noted the Justice Department brought little testimonial evidence to dispute the declarants' accounts, leaving many allegations largely unrebutted. U.S. District Court
Government's position and policy guidance
The Justice Department told the court the encounters were part of a lawful, targeted enforcement action and said agents relied on database checks, license plate searches and other investigative steps. DOJ also pointed to a Jan. 28 memo from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons that gave agents discretion to detain people they could "reasonably assume" were in the country illegally, according to Courthouse News Service. Tostrud examined that memo and the government's explanations and found them insufficient to justify a number of the contested stops.
Local officials and community reaction
State and city leaders have mounted their own legal challenges to the surge. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul filed suit in January, calling the deployment an unlawful and disruptive action that terrorized neighborhoods and strained local resources. The City of Minneapolis press release lays out impacts ranging from school lockdowns to businesses closing and frames the litigation as an effort to protect residents' constitutional rights. City of Minneapolis
What comes next
Legal analysts say Tostrud's factual findings are likely to be cited in other lawsuits and appeals over federal enforcement tactics even though he declined injunctive relief because of a drawdown in Minnesota enforcement, according to MPR News. Plaintiffs are expected to press forward, and the ACLU has indicated in its court filings and public statements that it will continue litigating and gathering evidence to support broader relief.
The ruling amounts to a blunt judicial rebuke of how federal agents operated during the surge, but for now the most immediate, enforceable curbs on ICE's tactics remain unresolved as the litigation proceeds through the district court and potentially the appeals process. Observers say the coming weeks will show whether Tostrud's factual findings translate into lasting courtroom limits on federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Courthouse News Service
