A federal court in Minneapolis heard arguments on Monday on whether the Trump administration’s deployment of 3,000 immigration agents to Minnesota has crossed the line from law enforcement into unconstitutional occupation.
Hours later, Kate Menendez, the Biden-appointed US district judge overseeing the case, ordered the federal government to respond to the assertion that the Trump administration’s so-called “Operation Metro Surge” enforcement campaign was intended to “punish plaintiffs for adopting sanctuary laws and policies”.
She gave the Trump administration lawyers until Wednesday evening to respond, suggesting a ruling was not imminent.
The extraordinary legal question centers on the 10th amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution. Lawyers for Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St Paul claim in their suit that Operation Metro Surge has become so intrusive and dangerous that it amounts to an illegal occupation of the state.
They are asking Menendezto immediately halt the operation, which they say has terrified residents, put public safety at risk, and made it nearly impossible for local officials to do their jobs, from policing neighborhoods to keeping schools running normally. Menendez declined to rule immediately following the arguments.
The case, which was filed after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, has taken on new urgency following Saturday’s fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis nurse and US citizen who was killed by federal agents while apparently filming an immigration operation. Videos verified by the Guardian contradict portions of the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the incident.
Pretti’s death marks the third shooting involving federal agents this month.
Monday’s hearing began with state lawyer Lindsey Middlecamp demanding an immediate end to what she called an “unlawful and unchecked invasion” by federal agents, according to reporters in the court room. She cited the Pretti killing and described Operation Metro Surge as violent by design, relying on shows of force and aggressive racial profiling. She also alleged retaliation against critics, saying businesses who spoke out have faced audits and some protesters have had their global entry status revoked.
Much of the hearing, according to reporters, has focused on a letter from the attorney general, Pam Bondi, which the state characterizes as an extortion attempt that violates the 10th amendment. Minnesota’s lawyers argue the Trump administration is using Operation Metro Surge to force policy changes rather than letting courts resolve disputes. “They are not letting the courts work this stuff out,” the state said. “What they’re trying to get in court … they’re trying to get that same thing by putting 3,000 heavily armed agents on the streets of Minnesota.”
The Bondi letter explicitly linked ending the surge to three demands: access to voter registration records, welfare program data, and the repeal of sanctuary policies, none of which the state argues have anything to do with immigration enforcement. Bondi’s first demand to halt the operation asked the state to hand over Snap data, which Minnesota’s lawyers say makes clear the federal government is using the presence of armed agents to coerce compliance on unrelated matters.
Menendez expressed difficulty drawing the line between legitimate federal pressure and illegal coercion. “What helps me decide when this very rarely used doctrine gives me the power to kick ICE out of the state?” she said.
After the arguments, Haiyun Damon-Feng, a constitutional law scholar and assistant law professor at the Cardozo School of Law, said Minnesota’s legal strategy went beyond how anti-commandeering cases have traditionally been presented.
While classic cases involved explicit federal requirements – such as forcing state officers to conduct gun purchase background checks – Minnesota is arguing the doctrine also applies when federal presence and conduct effectively pull state resources away from critical duties.
“The anti-commandeering doctrine is basically an anti-coercion doctrine that preserves state sovereignty within our federal constitutional structure,” Damon-Feng explained. “The 10th amendment is generally understood to be a structural protection to guard states and people against federal tyranny, and that is what Minnesota is invoking here.”
The state’s lawsuit argues the surge is motivated by a “desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points” rather than legitimate enforcement needs. It does not seek an end to all immigration enforcement in Minnesota, but asks for a return to pre-surge staffing levels and restrictions on how remaining agents operate.
Trump administration lawyers have dismissed the claims as lacking “a shred of legal support”. They describe the operation as lawful enforcement of immigration laws that has resulted in arrests of people convicted of serious crimes. “President Trump campaigned and won election on a promise to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress,” government lawyers wrote. “For the last year, DHS has delivered on that promise.”
Legally speaking, it is largely uncharted territory. Menendez has noted there is limited precedent for a state challenging federal law enforcement on 10th amendment grounds, though Illinois has filed a similar lawsuit seeking to block immigration enforcement without express congressional authorization.
In a letter filed hours after Saturday’s shooting, state and city lawyers wrote that “the situation is grave” and urged the judge to act.
“This cannot continue. We need the court to act to stop this surge before yet another resident dies because of Operation Metro Surge.”
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
