Federal Judge Weighs Emergency Halt to Trump’s Immigration Crackdown in Minnesota

The frozen streets of Minneapolis have become the epicenter of a historic constitutional collision as the state of Minnesota attempts to legally “evict” thousands of federal agents. In a high-stakes emergency hearing on Monday, lawyers for the state argued that the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge” has transformed from a law enforcement action into an unconstitutional “invasion” of state sovereignty.

The 10th Amendment as a Shield

At the heart of the legal battle is the 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. Minnesota’s legal team contends that the deployment of approximately 3,000 ICE agents – essentially an “army” on local soil – has created a climate of fear so intense that it has paralyzed state functions.

They argue that while the federal government has the power to enforce immigration law, it does not have the authority to “bend the state’s will” through overwhelming force.

Judge Katherine Menendez, a Biden appointee, signaled the gravity of the case by noting it was on the “front burner” of her docket. However, she also expressed skepticism about how to draw a definitive line between a robust federal law enforcement response and a constitutional violation.

The state’s demand is absolute: a temporary restraining order to freeze the surge immediately, arguing that every hour the operation continues, the risk of further violence increases.

The urgency of the state’s request is fueled by the recent death of Alex Pretti, a 37 – year – old ICU nurse who was killed during a confrontation between protesters and federal officers.

Pretti is the second person to die in an ICE – related shooting in Minnesota this month, following the death of Renee Good on January 7.

These fatalities have turned a policy dispute into a volatile civil rights crisis that threatens to ignite further unrest across the Twin Cities.

How We Got Here: The Alien Enemies Act of 1798

To understand why the administration believes it can surge thousands of agents into a defiant state, one must look at the revitalized use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Originally part of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, this wartime authority allows a President to detain and deport citizens of a “hostile” foreign nation during a time of “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”

• 1798: The law is enacted amid fears of war with France, giving the President sweeping summary removal powers.
• 1812: Used during the War of 1812 against British nationals living in the United States.
• 1942: Serves as a primary legal basis for the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian non – citizens during World War II.
• 2026: The Trump administration invokes the Act by labeling transnational cartels and gangs as “de facto” foreign governments staging an invasion.

The administration’s “Operation Metro Surge” is grounded in this theory – that the presence of certain criminal elements constitutes a “predatory incursion” that justifies bypassing traditional judicial review.

By using this wartime footing in a domestic setting, the executive branch is attempting to override the due process protections that usually apply to civil immigration enforcement.

The “Ransom Note” Controversy

The courtroom drama took a sharp turn when the state’s lawyers introduced a letter sent by Attorney General Pam Bondi to Governor Tim Walz. In the letter, Bondi sought access to the state’s voter rolls and public assistance data, suggesting that compliance with these requests would help “bring back law and order.”

Minnesota’s attorneys characterized the letter as “extortionate,” effectively a “ransom note” offering to end the ICE surge only if the state surrendered private citizen data.

Judge Menendez pressed the Justice Department for specifics, asking if the executive branch was attempting to achieve a goal through physical force that it could not achieve through the courts. The DOJ lawyers declined to elaborate on the letter’s intent, instead doubling down on the President’s authority to fulfill campaign promises through the surge of resources.

This friction highlights the Dilemma of Cooperative Federalism. Usually, the federal government and states work together to enforce laws; however, when a state refuses to cooperate, the federal government may attempt to “preempt” state law under the Supremacy Clause.

The question for the court is whether the federal government can use its enforcement “army” as a bargaining chip to gain access to state databases.

Sovereignty vs. Supremacy

The Department of Justice argues that the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes federal law the “supreme Law of the Land,” and that a state cannot block the executive branch from removing individuals who are in the country illegally. They contend that the ICE agents are merely doing their jobs and that any “environment of fear” is the result of state leaders encouraging obstruction.

• Federal Argument: The President has plenary power over immigration and national security, and states cannot interfere with federal operations.
• State Argument: The 10th Amendment protects the state’s “police power” to maintain its own peace, which is being undermined by federal “overreach.”
• Judicial Question: At what point does a surge of federal agents become so large that it effectively “displaces” state government?

A Precedent for Interior Enforcement

If Judge Menendez grants the restraining order, it would mark a stunning judicial rebuke to the “Unitary Executive” theory. It would suggest that there is a limit to how many federal agents can be deployed to a single locality before the federal government begins to infringe upon the reserved powers of the states.

On the other hand, if the court refuses to intervene, it could embolden the administration to replicate the “Metro Surge” playbook in other Democratic – led cities like Chicago or Seattle. This would effectively create a new era of interior immigration enforcement where the federal government maintains a permanent, large – scale military – style presence in major American metropolitan areas.

“At its heart, the issue is that the federal government is attempting to bend the state’s will to its own,” argued Brian Carter, a lawyer for Minnesota. “And that is not allowed under the Constitution.”

The Stakes of a Ruling

As the nation awaits Judge Menendez’s decision, the Twin Cities remain on a knife – edge. The ongoing protests behind makeshift barricades and the banging of trash cans serve as a visceral reminder that the legal theories debated in court have life – and – death consequences on the ground.

For the constitutional watchdog, the case is a warning of how wartime emergency powers – like the 1798 Act – can be imported into domestic policy. If the court allows the “Metro Surge” to continue, it may be admitting that the 10th Amendment is no longer a viable shield against a determined executive branch.

The resolution of this case will define the boundaries of the American federation for the 21st century. It will decide if a state is a sovereign partner in the Union or merely a territory where the federal government can exercise unchecked force in pursuit of its agenda.