What has the ACLU’s class-action complaint in Minnesota alleged and what remedies is it seeking?
Executive summary
The ACLU’s class-action complaint filed in federal court in Minnesota alleges that federal immigration agents—principally ICE and CBP—have carried out suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, racial profiling, and other unconstitutional conduct targeting Somali and Latino Minnesotans, including U.S. citizens, during a recent surge of federal deployments; the complaint frames these practices as violations of the Fourth and First Amendments and the equal protection guarantee [1] [2] [3]. The suit seeks broad equitable relief: preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt the challenged practices, certification of classes representing all Minnesotans stopped or arrested for immigration purposes since December 1, 2025 (and relevant subclasses), and remediation such as expungement of records obtained through allegedly unlawful stops and arrests [4] [5] [6].
1. What the complaint says about suspicionless stops and warrantless arrests
The complaint alleges that ICE and CBP agents have been stopping and arresting people without warrants or probable cause simply because agents perceived them to be Somali or Latino, and that those stops frequently occurred during ordinary activities like going to work, shopping, or attending religious services [1] [4] [6]. Plaintiffs’ sworn accounts include descriptions of detentions, arrests, being shackled, fingerprinted, and—according to one account—driven around and left in a parking lot before eventual release after showing a passport, which the ACLU says underscores the absence of basic investigative steps such as asking about citizenship, community ties, or identity before seizing people [6] [2].
2. Allegations of racial, religious and linguistic profiling
The ACLU frames the enforcement operation as motivated by racial and ethnic bias, saying Somali and Latino residents were disproportionately targeted; the complaint includes specific allegations such as agents asking a woman to remove a niqab, separating her from her child, and disparaging the use of Somali as a “foreign language,” which the complaint cites as evidence of religion- and language-based discrimination [2] [5]. The complaint also ties the surge to incendiary public statements by national officials that, the ACLU argues, created an atmosphere in which agents acted on prejudiced assumptions—an allegation the ACLU made explicit in its press materials [1].
3. First Amendment and use-of-force claims tied to observers and protesters
Beyond seizure claims, the ACLU presses First Amendment protections, alleging federal agents intimidated, used chemical irritants against, and pointed firearms at people who were observing, documenting, or protesting immigration enforcement—conduct the plaintiffs say chilled constitutionally protected monitoring and protest activity [3] [7]. The complaint follows earlier ACLU litigation in Minnesota over observers’ claims and accompanies other ACLU demands after an ICE-related fatal shooting that intensified scrutiny of federal tactics in the state [8] [7].
4. The remedies the ACLU is seeking in court
Legally, plaintiffs asked the court for immediate injunctive relief—a temporary restraining order converted into a preliminary injunction motion is already part of the docket—seeking to halt the practices while the case proceeds and, ultimately, to enjoin the federal government from continuing the alleged suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, racial profiling, and retaliatory tactics [3] [4]. The complaint also seeks class certification for broad classes and subclasses covering all people stopped for immigration purposes in Minnesota since Dec. 1, 2025, and asks the court to require expungement or deletion of records gathered through allegedly unlawful encounters [4] [5].
5. Where the government and other sources stand and what’s at stake
DHS and federal officials have publicly denied the allegations, calling them “disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” framing the challenge as politically charged and urging deference to enforcement judgment [4] [9]. The ACLU and its co-counsel, noting sworn accounts and a contemporaneous deployment of thousands of agents, argue the case raises systemic constitutional questions about seizure, free-speech, equal-protection, and use-of-force limits when federal law-enforcement resources are concentrated in a community [1] [8].
6. The legal path forward and limits of current reporting
The complaint—filed as Hussen v. Noem and publicly available through the ACLU—has already prompted expedited briefing and a motion for preliminary relief in federal court; beyond that procedural posture, outcomes will hinge on class certification, factual discovery into enforcement patterns and decisions, and judicial rulings balancing national-security and immigration-enforcement prerogatives against constitutional protections, a balance not resolved in reporting to date [1] [3]. Reporting documents plaintiffs’ allegations and the remedies sought; it does not substitute for the court’s factfinding or for the government’s evidence in defense, which are not fully reflected in the sources reviewed [3] [5].