While federal judge says ICE likely made ‘unconstitutional’ stops, he denies injunction

A federal judge said immigration agents likely engaged in unconstitutional enforcement practices during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota but declined to issue a preliminary injunction in the case.In a 111-page order, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud wrote that plaintiffs challenging federal immigration enforcement had shown evidence that officials adopted policies allowing stops based on race or ethnicity without reasonable suspicion.
“I conclude that Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that Defendants have adopted a policy authorizing federal immigration officers to conduct investigatory stops based on ethnicity or race without reasonable suspicion that the individuals were violating immigration laws,” Tostrud wrote in the order.
He added that evidence presented in the case describing encounters between agents and residents was “compelling and troubling.”
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota on behalf of three individuals detained during the federal immigration enforcement effort known as Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities.
Plaintiffs alleged that agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted stops and arrests without reasonable suspicion and disproportionately targeted Somali and Latino residents. Testimony presented during court hearings included accounts from immigrants and U.S. citizens who said they were questioned or detained because of their race, ethnicity or because they were speaking a foreign language.
Among those who testified was 20-year-old Somali American and U.S. citizen Mubashir Hussen, who said he was detained in December in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside neighborhood while attempting to tell agents he was an American citizen.
The ruling examined dozens of encounters described in the lawsuit, including at least 23 instances in which the court found individuals were stopped without “reasonable, articulable suspicion” during the operation.
Tostrud wrote that witnesses described being approached while carrying out routine activities such as shoveling snow, delivering orders, or walking to a mosque. The judge also noted the federal government presented little witness testimony to rebut the claims, leaving much of the plaintiffs’ accounts undisputed.
“The evidence from individual encounters is strong,” the order said.
Despite those findings, the judge denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily barred the enforcement practices. Under federal law, he wrote, plaintiffs must show a strong likelihood they will face the same harm again.
“No Plaintiff or declarant has been unlawfully stopped or arrested a second time,” Tostrud wrote. “Though Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional policies, Plaintiffs have not shown that irreparable injury is likely to befall them in the immediate future.”
He also pointed to the end of Operation Metro Surge as a factor weighing against immediate court intervention.
“The drawdown of Operation Metro Surge makes it less likely that irreparable harm will occur absent an injunction,” Tostrud wrote, adding that preliminary injunction would have been an “extraordinary remedy.”
Attorneys with the ACLU said the decision still represents an important acknowledgement of unconstitutional conduct.
In a statement provided to the Star Tribune, the ACLU said, “After hearing the brave testimony of Minnesotans who were racially profiled by federal immigration agents, the court found that our clients made a clear showing that the agents were following an unlawful policy to stop and arrest Minnesotans in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.”
The organization added that it was disappointed the court did not grant temporary relief but intends to continue pursuing the case.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment from The Center Square.
The lawsuit stems from Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale immigration enforcement effort launched in the Twin Cities early this year. Federal officials said the operation targeted individuals in the country illegally, particularly those accused of violent crimes.
As previously reported by The Center Square, federal officials said more than 4,000 people living in the U.S. illegally were apprehended during the operation, including individuals accused of murder, sexual offenses and gang-related crimes.
The operation began winding down in February after federal officials announced agents would be reassigned or returned to their regular duty stations. When asked by The Center Square how many agents remain, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said on February 24 that it does not disclose the number of personnel deployed for operational security reasons.
Tostrud spoke to the number in his order.
“At its peak, more than 3,000 federal immigration officers and agents were detailed to the Saint Paul Field Office, and by February 23, 2026, that number dropped below 1,000,” he wrote.
The case will now proceed as litigation continues in federal court.

Read Full Article: https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/federal-judge-says-ice-likely-made-unconstitutional-stops-denies?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators