Federal Judge Weighs Emergency Block of Trump Immigration Agent Surge in Minnesota

Key Facts

Published: January 26, 2026 Location: Minneapolis Source: Court Records, Wire Services

• Federal judge delays ruling on Minnesota’s request to block Trump immigration surge
• State claims Operation Metro Surge violates 10th Amendment and state sovereignty
• Justice Department defends deployment as response to sanctuary policies
• Judge questions scope of executive power and potential constitutional coercion

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief

MINNEAPOLIS (Worthy News) – A federal judge on Monday heard arguments from the state of Minnesota seeking an emergency halt to the Trump administration’s deployment of thousands of federal immigration agents to the Twin Cities, a sweeping operation that has intensified tensions between state and federal authorities following a fatal shooting involving a Border Patrol agent.

The case centers on “Operation Metro Surge,” a federal initiative that has brought thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection officers into Minnesota over the past two months. Minnesota officials argue the surge violates state sovereignty and the 10th Amendment, while the Justice Department says the deployment is a lawful response to the state’s sanctuary-style policies.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, a Biden appointee, ended the hearing without issuing a ruling, citing the constitutional complexity and urgency of the dispute. She said the matter raises serious separation-of-powers concerns that may not be resolvable through a single district court injunction.

“One of the things I’m struggling with is that not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction,” Menendez said from the bench, noting that any decision would likely be appealed quickly to the Eighth Circuit.

State Alleges Coercion, 10th Amendment Violations

Attorneys for Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis argued that the Trump administration is using the massive federal presence to pressure the state into dismantling its sanctuary policies, a tactic they say violates the Constitution’s “anti-commandeering doctrine.”

Brian Carter, representing Minneapolis, told the court the state is asking for a return to the “status quo” that existed before Operation Metro Surge. He described the deployment as unprecedented, claiming as many as 3,000 to 4,000 masked and heavily armed federal agents have been sent into Minnesota.

“What we’re asking the court to do is to apply the 10th Amendment to prohibit the federal government from coercing the state into legislating or using its resources to affect a federal regulatory scheme,” Carter said.

Plaintiffs pointed to a Jan. 24 letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, which demanded the state repeal sanctuary policies, share Medicaid and food stamp data, and provide voter rolls to the Justice Department. Minnesota argues the letter amounts to unconstitutional pressure on state lawmaking.

Justice Department Defends Federal Authority

Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers rejected claims of coercion, saying the surge is a necessary enforcement response to Minnesota’s lack of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

He told the court that if state policies changed, “it would change the reaction,” though he stopped short of committing to an end to the surge. Menendez pressed him on whether that position effectively tied policy concessions to the withdrawal of federal agents, raising potential 10th Amendment concerns.

Mayers also acknowledged uncertainty over the total number of agents deployed, estimating more than 2,000 ICE officers and possibly thousands more CBP personnel — an answer that appeared to frustrate the judge.

Fatal Shooting Raises Stakes

The hearing followed the Jan. 24 shooting of a U.S. citizen by a Border Patrol agent, an incident cited repeatedly by state attorneys as evidence that the current situation is “untenable.” Menendez ordered the federal government to preserve evidence related to the shooting.

She also questioned whether the surge’s outcomes match its stated goals, noting that many arrests appear to be “collateral” rather than targeted apprehensions of criminal offenders.

“Is there no limit to what the executive can do in the guise of enforcing immigration law?” Menendez asked.

Trump Signals Possible De-Escalation

The case has become a flashpoint in the broader clash over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda. Over the weekend, Trump struck a more conciliatory tone, saying he had a productive call with Gov. Walz and that the two agreed to “work together.”

Trump confirmed he is sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota to assess the situation and explore next steps. The president also said a “major investigation” is underway into what he described as a massive welfare fraud scheme in the state.

Menendez suggested Trump’s public comments about cooperation could undermine the administration’s argument that an extraordinary show of federal force is necessary.

“What do I do with that?” she asked during the hearing.

With no immediate ruling, the court is expected to request additional information from the Justice Department, including an exact count of federal agents deployed. The outcome could shape the future balance between federal immigration enforcement and state sovereignty nationwide.

Latest Worthy News