Judge says ICE showed 'unconstitutional policies' during surge, but won't block its practices

Sarah Nelson, The Minnesota Star Tribune on Mar 10, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

MINNEAPOLIS — While he acknowledged behavior he called “troubling,” a judge this week rejected an effort by the ACLU to block arrests without reasonable suspicion and racial profiling reported during Operation Metro Surge while a lawsuit proceeds, citing the exodus of federal agents from Minnesota.

In a 111-page order on Monday, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents likely engaged in “unconstitutional policies,” with as many as 23 immigrants appearing to have been stopped or “questioned about their immigration status based solely on their race or ethnicity,” he wrote.

But the judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the practices while the lawsuit remained pending, pointing to the withdrawal of federal agents in Minnesota.

“The drawdown of Operation Metro Surge makes it less likely that irreparable harm will occur absent an injunction,” Tostrud said, referring to border czar Tom Homan’s Feb. 12 announcement of the withdrawal of federal agents in the state.

For an injunction, Tostrud wrote, the plaintiffs must show a “significant probability” that ICE will stop or arrest them again in the imminent future — which he called speculative.

In response to the ruling, The ACLU of Minnesota 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. While we are disappointed in the court’s decision not to grant preliminary relief at this time, we will continue to pursue accountability, and this decision is an important step in that direction.”

The Minnesota Star Tribune has reached out to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about the ruling.

The ACLU of Minnesota filed the class-action lawsuit against the federal government on Jan. 15, accusing immigration agents of racially profiling Somali and Latino people through unlawful stops and arrests during the enforcement surge across the Twin Cities that brought 3,000 agents.

In mid-February, Tostrud heard testimony over two days from several Somali and Latino residents who described their arrests and detainment by immigration agents since the start of Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1. Many of the residents testified that they were taken away or stopped for no apparent reason, even when they showed their passport. One U.S. citizen from Mexico said he was handcuffed because of his accent.

“I felt I was protected by being a U.S. citizen and they couldn’t do anything to me,” Ramon Menera Romero testified.

Attorneys for the U.S. government in court repeatedly rejected the witnesses’ accounts, saying there was no evidence that agents engaged in racial profiling against residents during the surge. At many times, the Justice Department attorneys suggested the immigrants drew their conclusion about their arrests being based on their race from the news or social media.

In his order, Tostrud said he was not convinced by that argument, saying “the witnesses would have held these same beliefs regardless of whether the witnesses read or observed others reporting these same beliefs on social or news media.”

Tostrud said he found immigrants’ accounts tied to the lawsuit credible, agreeing that many had been stopped or arrested because of their race or ethnicity — a trend he called “compelling and troubling.”

Despite the accounts, Tostrud said attorneys for the immigrants have not cleared the hurdle of proving the immigrants are certain to have a future encounter with ICE, claiming 33 of the witnesses tied to the lawsuit have not been arrested a second time.