What legal actions have Minnesota officials taken against federal ICE operations and what documents have they produced?
Executive summary
Minnesota’s state and local officials have pursued both litigation and public-document disclosures to challenge a large DHS/ICE operation known as “Operation Metro Surge,” filing a federal lawsuit led by Attorney General Keith Ellison with the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul seeking to halt the deployments and alleging constitutional and administrative-law violations [1] [2] [3]. Parallel civil-rights litigation by the ACLU and other groups has produced class-action complaints alleging suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, racial profiling, and retaliation against observers, and a federal judge issued a detailed injunction restricting certain ICE tactics that has since been subject to appellate review [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The core lawsuit: state and cities ask a federal court to stop the surge
On January 12, 2026 the State of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul filed a federal complaint (Case No. 0:26-cv-00190) against the Department of Homeland Security and related federal actors seeking an order to end the ICE surge and curb specific tactics; that complaint is publicly available as the plaintiffs’ filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota [3] [2]. The complaint accuses DHS agents of tactics the plaintiffs call “militarized raids,” unlawful use of force, warrantless arrests, and operations targeted at sensitive locations such as schools, and frames the claims under the Tenth Amendment, the First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination and retaliation), the Equal Sovereignty principle, and the Administrative Procedure Act’s bar on arbitrary and capricious agency action [3] [1] [2].
2. Immediate requests and the court’s response: injunctions, prohibitions, and appeals
Minnesota plaintiffs sought emergency relief blocking specific federal tactics, and U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez issued an expansive preliminary injunction that, among other things, barred federal agents from detaining or using pepper spray, tear gas or similar crowd-control munitions against peaceful demonstrators or bystanders who are observing or recording enforcement operations—an 83‑page order that became central to the dispute [7] [6]. The injunction was then challenged on appeal, and an appellate panel temporarily stayed parts of the district court’s order, with national reporting noting the appeals court action to lift or pause lower‑court restrictions [6].
3. Parallel civil-rights suits by ACLU and community groups
Separately, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Minnesota — with private law firms — filed class-action litigation on behalf of community members alleging constitutional violations tied to ICE and CBP conduct in Minnesota, including suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, racial profiling, and retaliation against people observing or protesting enforcement, and those filings are publicly announced in ACLU press materials [4] [5]. Those suits—identified in reporting by names like Hussen v. Noem and Tincher v. Noem in related coverage—seek classwide relief and document numerous alleged incidents that community groups and the ACLU say illustrate systemic misconduct [4] [8].
4. Federal government pushback and procedural filings
The Department of Justice has formally opposed Minnesota’s motion for emergency relief, filing responses that characterize the state’s claims as legally frivolous and arguing the federal operation does not infringe on Minnesota’s core policing powers or sovereignty, a position summarized in reporting from Fox 9 and other outlets [9]. Those DOJ filings are part of the public court docket that frames the procedural fight between state and federal authorities over relief and the legal theories raised by the plaintiffs [9] [3].
5. Municipal declarations, press releases, and local policy acts as documentary record
Minneapolis and Saint Paul issued coordinated press releases and web pages documenting their legal arguments, local executive actions, and requests for court intervention while emphasizing support services and legal resources for residents; these municipal statements explicitly recount the allegations and demand an end to Operation Metro Surge and related federal activities [1] [10] [2]. Those public records serve both as policy statements and as contemporaneous exhibits of local official positions in the legal fight [1] [10].
6. What the public record does and does not show
The consolidated public record available in the provided sources includes the plaintiffs’ federal complaint (Case No. 0:26-cv-00190), municipal press releases and web guidance, ACLU class-action announcements, a detailed district‑court injunction, and DOJ oppositions and appellate activity; those filings and public statements are the primary documents produced to date in this litigation and advocacy campaign [3] [1] [2] [4] [6] [9]. Absent from the provided sources are final merits rulings resolving the constitutional claims or a settled, court-ordered cessation of the surge; the record instead shows active, contested litigation and interlocutory orders subject to appeal [6] [9].