Original Date Announced

According to a lawsuit filed by Minnesotans against the Trump administration, DHS launched “Operation Metro Surge," an immigration-enforcement operation, in Minnesota: at least 100 ICE and HSI agents have been deployed in the Twin Cities to initiate the operation.

The complaint asserts that ICE agents in Minnesota have engaged in racial profiling and warrantless arrests, including violent tackles and arrests. Plaintiffs allege that the government’s actions violate the First and Fourth Amendments and seek injunctive relief barring defendants from engaging in unconstitutional conduct and retaliation against class members, defined as "All persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against the DHS immigration operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025." Tincher v. Noem, No. 0:25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Trump 2.0 [ID #2170]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.12 Complaint - Minnesota v. Noem

Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed suit against the administration to challenge Operation Metro Surge. The complaint states that DHS has deployed as many as 2,000 agents to the Twin Cities in a "federal invasion." It asserts that the administration targeted Minnesota based on animus and is using fraud as a pretext. It also alleges that agents have racially profiled Minnesotans and engaged in unlawful conduct toward protestors and legal observers—including fatally shooting Renee Good on January 7, 2026.

The complaint alleges that the administration's actions violate the First and Tenth Amendments and the Constitution's equal-sovereignty principle. It further alleges that defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by, among other things, breaching state law and city ordinances, using excessive force, and conducting warrantless arrests. Minnesota v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-00190 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.14 DHS - DHS Highlights Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested Yesterday in Minneapolis

DHS released a press release to “highlight[] the success of Operation Metro Surge in arresting the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from Minnesota neighborhoods.” It states that the arrests occurred “despite a lack of cooperation” from Minnesota state officials.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.14 Reported: Pentagon to dispatch dozens of military lawyers to Minneapolis amid immigration crackdown - CNN

CNN reports that the Pentagon is surging dozens of military lawyers to Minneapolis to assist in federal prosecutions arising from the immigration crackdown, according to two officials and a written request inside DOD. The emailed request, reviewed by CNN, says that Secretary Hegseth directed 40 JAGs to be identified, from which 25 will be selected to serve as special assistant United States attorneys (SAUSAs) in Minneapolis.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.15 Complaint - Hussen v. Noem

Three individual Minnesotans filed a class action to challenge the administration's actions in Operation Metro Surge. The complaint alleges that federal immigration agents are stopping people without reasonable suspicion—and particularly targeting those perceived to be Somali or Latino—and making arrests without warrants or probable cause. The complaint also states that the arrests are "being carried out with an unprecedented level of violence." Plaintiffs allege that the administration's actions violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution as well as federal statutory law, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt these practices. Hussen v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-00324 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.16 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction - Tincher v. Noem

District Judge Kate Menendez issued a partial preliminary injunction in Tincher v. Noem, restricting federal agents' conduct in Operation Metro Surge. The ruling enjoins federal agents from retaliating against, arresting, detaining, and/or using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against a putative class of peaceful demonstrators and observers. Moreover, agents may not stop or detain drivers and passengers in vehicles without reasonable suspicion of forcible obstruction or interference. The ruling carves out protection for ICE observers, stating that "[t]he act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop." The injunction will remain in effect until Operation Metro Surge concludes or the conditions change such that it is no longer necessary. Tincher v. Noem, No. 0:25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.16 Reported: Native Americans are being swept up by ICE in Minneapolis, tribes say - The Washington Post

The Washington Post reports that U.S.-citizen Native Americans in the Minneapolis area say they are being stopped, questioned, and, in some cases, detained by federal immigration officers as the administration escalates immigration enforcement there. Tribes, lawmakers, and legal scholars warn that Indigenous people are being racially profiled based on skin color or names and mistakenly targeted as noncitizens. Several incidents, including detention of Native Americans for hours before release, have heightened fears within tribal communities. Tribal leaders argue that such actions are unlawful and violate longstanding treaties.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.18 Reported: Lawyers allege Dept. of Homeland Security is denying legal counsel to Minnesota detainees - ABC News

ABC News reports that thousands of people arrested in recent ICE operations in Minneapolis are being held at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building without access to counsel. Attorneys allege that ICE agents are citing a variety of invalid reasons to justify intentionally denying attorney visits, in violation of detained clients' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and right to counsel. DHS denies the claims, stating detainees have access to phones, attorney lists, and "full due process." The attorneys contend that phone access to clients is an unacceptable substitute given the likelihood that federal authorities are listening in to such calls.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.26 Opinion - Tincher v. Noem

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction is unlikely to survive the government's interlocutory appeal. The Court found that the differences in conduct among observers, protestors, and federal agents mean there are no questions of law or fact common to the class, making the injunction "just a universal injunction by another name." In addition, the Court held that the injunction is too broad and vague and could cause federal agents to hesitate in performing their lawful duties, threatening irreparable harm to the government and undermining the public interest. Judge Raymond Gruender, in a partial dissent, disagreed with the majority's analysis of the class and would also have denied the government's motion to stay in part by upholding the injunction's treatment of federal agents' use of pepper spray and similar nonlethal munitions. Tincher v. Noem, No. 0:25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.27 Reported: FBI to investigate Minneapolis activists after far-right claim about Signal chats - The Guardian

The Guardian reports that FBI director Kash Patel announced he was launching a criminal investigation into Signal chats used by Minneapolis protestors. Patel made the announcement after a far-right personality infiltrated a Signal group chat of anti-ICE organizers and posted communication showing activists trying to locate and share descriptions and license plates of ICE vehicles.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.27 Complaint - Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS

The Advocates for Human Rights and one pseudonymous plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that DHS and ICE are denying detainees at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building (Whipple) near Minneapolis access to counsel. Although Whipple had been used exclusively for short-term holdings before Metro Surge, the complaint states that it is now holding detainees for days at a time.

The complaint asserts that DHS has not provided detainees with access to counsel since at least January 11, 2026. According to plaintiffs, DHS has told attorneys that no visitation between detainees and attorneys is or has ever been permitted at Whipple, fails to provide places or methods for detainees to have private calls call with counsel, and routinely transfers detainees out of state before they can speak with their attorneys. Plaintiffs allege that these acts violate the First and Fifth Amendments, the Administrative Procedure Act, and ICE's rules on visitation. The Advocates for Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 0:26-cv-00749 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.29 Reported: ICE officers in Minnesota directed not to interact with 'agitators' in new orders - Reuters

Reuters reports that ICE officers in Minnesota were instructed to avoid engaging with “agitators” and to limit enforcement to “targeted” arrests of immigrants with criminal charges or convictions, rather than conducting broad, roving enforcement sweeps. Under the guidance, officers should limit communication with the public to issuing commands and may make arrests based on criminal charges and license-plate checks.

The guidance from Marcos Charles, head of ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations, emphasizes that "all targets must have a criminal nexus." It follows President Trump’s effort to de-escalate tensions after ICE officers fatally shot two U.S. citizens protesting in Minneapolis. Trump placed "border czar" Tom Homan in charge of Minnesota operations, moved Border Patrol into a support role, and cited increased cooperation from state and local officials.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.30 Expedited Motion to Submit Appeal on the Briefs - Avila v. Bondi

The government filed a motion in Avila v. Bondi, a habeas case challenging DHS's no-bond detention of a noncitizen arrested in Minneapolis, urging the Eighth Circuit to either decide the government's appeal of Mr. Avila's win at the district court without oral argument or to expedite the oral argument schedule. The appeal asks the Eighth Circuit to decide whether noncitizen U.S. residents who entered the country unlawfully may be detained without opportunity for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

The government's motion states that the "sheer number" of habeas cases filed in the District of Minnesota—more than 100 in the second half of 2025 and over 427 in January 2026 alone—is imposing a "crushing burden" on government attorneys. The motion notes that U.S. Attorneys' Offices have shifted resources away from "critical priorities" while government attorneys in the District of Minnesota are "appearing daily for hearings on contempt motions" in habeas cases. Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.01.31 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction - Minnesota v. Noem

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez denied a preliminary injunction halting Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis and St. Paul, holding that Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the operation violated the Tenth Amendment and the equal sovereignty principle. Judge Menendez expressed hesitation to extend anti-commandeering principles into the new context of "an unprecedented deployment of armed federal immigration officers to aggressively enforce immigration statutes." Judge Menendez also concluded that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently show that Operation Metro Surge is a coercive federal action, suggesting that while a surge of federal immigration enforcement may indeed be coercive, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that sanctuary jurisdictions require more federal immigration officers than a jurisdiction that "actively assists" ICE. Minnesota v. Noem, No. 0:26-cv-00190 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.04 Reported: Trump administration will pull 700 immigration officers from Minneapolis - Politico

Politico reports that border czar Tom Homan announced the Trump administration will reduce the number of federal immigration enforcement officers in Minnesota by 25%. Homan stated that increased law enforcement cooperation has reduced the need for more immigration officers. Approximately 2,000 immigration enforcement officers will remain in Minneapolis. Homan said that number will eventually return to the roughly 150 officers who typically operate in the city.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.05 Reported: Top Minnesota prosecutor says ICE cases are sidelining ‘pressing priorities’ - Politico

Politico reports that Minnesota's U.S. attorney says his already short-staffed office has been "abandoning 'pressing and important priorities' to manage the flood of immigration cases stemming from Operation Metro Surge," with 427 filed in January alone. In court filings – urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to rule quickly on whether ICE may detain noncitizens detained in the interior without bond hearings – he described attorneys and paralegals working constant overtime as the office operates in "reactive mode." The office "has cancelled all [civil enforcement] and any other affirmative priorities," contradicting DHS claims that DOJ is equipped to manage the caseload.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.12 Temporary Restraining Order - Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS

District Judge Nancy E. Brasel issued a temporary restraining order requiring DHS and ICE to restore meaningful access to lawyers for noncitizens detained at Whipple. The court held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim. It found that Whipple allowed in-person visits before Operation Metro Surge, and that defendants "make no effort to explain why in-person visits suddenly strain their resources." It further held that defendants' practice of transferring detainees out of state without an opportunity to consult with counsel is "unconstitutionally excessive." Among other things, the order requires DHS to provide Whipple detainees access to confidential calls and visitation with counsel, and notice of any out-of-state transfer and opportunity to reach counsel after such notice. The order further prohibits DHS from transferring any detainee out of Minnesota during the first 72 hours following their detention. The Advocates for Human Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 0:26-cv-00749 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.02.13 Amended Complaint - Tincher v. Noem

Plaintiffs in Tincher v. Noem filed an amended complaint and dozens of new sworn statements from protestors in Minnesota that detail ICE agents' "threatening and retaliatory behavior." The complaint alleges, for example, that ICE is photographing protestors and "obtaining [their] home addresses by running their license plates through a law enforcement database and then engaging in further retaliatory and chilling conduct." One declarant described a DHS vehicle almost ramming into her vehicle, and an agent identifying her by name and stating her home address. Another declarant described an encounter where an "agent addressed [her] by name and told her that CBP had facial recognition technology and that his body camera was recording"; three days later, she "received an email notice that her Global Entry/TSA-Pre Check had been revoked." Tincher v. Noem, No. 0:25-cv-04669 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**