How have Minnesota civil‑liberties lawsuits challenged ICE and DOJ enforcement tactics during the 2026 surge?
Executive summary
Minnesota civil‑liberties lawsuits during the 2026 ICE surge have directly challenged federal enforcement tactics by filing multiple suits alleging racial profiling, suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, constitutional targeting of the state, and restrictions on protesters and observers — actions brought by the ACLU, the state attorney general, and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul [1] [2] [3]. Federal courts have issued mixed, fast‑moving decisions and emergency filings, with judges both imposing and pausing limits on agent tactics while appellate courts and the DOJ push back, leaving compliance and enforcement contested on the ground [4] [5] [6].
1. The plaintiffs and the legal theories marshaled against ICE and DHS
Two distinct but overlapping tracks drove litigation: civil‑rights organizations filed class and individual suits alleging suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, racial profiling and violations of constitutional rights, while state and municipal governments sued asserting equal sovereignty, First Amendment retaliation, Administrative Procedure Act violations and requests for emergency relief to halt the “surge” (ACLU filings and complaint; Minnesota AG and city complaint) [1] [2] [7].
2. ACLU’s class action: fact patterns and requested relief
The American Civil Liberties Union and partner firms filed a lengthy complaint on behalf of named Minnesotans alleging federal agents engaged in stops without reasonable suspicion, detained people without warrants, racially profiled residents and even refused medical care after incidents; the complaint seeks classwide relief to stop those practices and called attention to related deaths in custody nationally (ACLU press release and complaint; ACLU case page) [1] [7].
3. State and city suit: framing the surge as unconstitutional targeting
Attorney General Keith Ellison, with Minneapolis and Saint Paul, framed its lawsuit as not only an infringement of individual rights but as an unlawful, politically motivated targeting of Minnesota that violated equal sovereignty, the APA and the First Amendment — and sought a temporary restraining order to halt the deployment and its effects on public safety (state filing and press release) [2] [8].
4. Courts, emergency orders and appellate pushback
Lower courts issued protective orders limiting some tactics and restricting arrests of peaceful protesters and observers, but those orders were quickly subject to appeals and stays; an appeals court paused a lower judge’s restrictions and other judges ruled that ICE could continue certain enforcement, underscoring the unsettled judicial landscape and rapid procedural back‑and‑forth (Reuters; Courthouse News Service; Time) [4] [5] [9].
5. Compliance, contempt and on‑the‑ground friction
Judges have repeatedly admonished DHS for noncompliance with release orders and other court directives, and government attorneys have described operational strain responding to an influx of habeas petitions — facts that suggest litigation is producing tangible pressure on federal operations even while many contested tactics have continued (MPR News; The Guardian reporting on operations and lawsuits) [6] [3].
6. Competing narratives, institutional agendas and investigations
The DOJ and federal defenders characterize state and municipal suits as legally weak or “frivolous,” while state and civil‑liberties plaintiffs emphasize civil‑rights harms and political targeting; at the same time, the Justice Department has opened or declined certain civil‑rights inquiries into fatal encounters, and federal scrutiny has reached Minnesota officials — revealing political and institutional stakes on both sides (DOJ response as reported; NYT on protests and DOJ handling; Reuters on investigations) [10] [11] [5].
7. What the litigation has achieved and the likely path forward
Litigation has slowed and complicated federal operations by producing emergency orders, drawing national scrutiny, generating compliance disputes in court, and forcing operational adjustments; however appellate intervention and DOJ resistance mean long‑term restraints are unresolved and likely to be decided through appeals and further evidentiary development rather than immediate, sweeping change (reports of orders, appeals, and court admonitions) [4] [5] [6].