TL;DR: On January 12, 2026, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, seeking to halt "Operation Metro Surge." The lawsuit alleges violations of the Tenth Amendment (state sovereignty), First Amendment (political targeting and retaliation), and details warrantless arrests, racial profiling, excessive force, and militarized raids. They're seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction. DHS called it political. If successful, this lawsuit could fundamentally reshape the limits of federal immigration enforcement. Illinois has filed a similar suit.
The Lawsuit: "Federal Invasion"
On January 12, 2026, Minnesota filed suit in federal court against DHS, ICE, and federal officials overseeing "Operation Metro Surge," the massive immigration enforcement operation that has deployed over 2,000 federal agents to the Twin Cities since December 2025.[1][2]
The plaintiffs:
- State of Minnesota (represented by AG Keith Ellison)
- City of Minneapolis (represented by Mayor Jacob Frey)
- City of St. Paul (represented by Mayor Kaohly Her)
Attorney General Ellison didn't mince words, calling the federal operations a "federal invasion" and declaring them unconstitutional and unlawful.[1]
The lawsuit seeks:
- Temporary restraining order to immediately halt operations
- Preliminary and permanent injunction against continued enforcement
- Declaration that the operations violate the Constitution
The Constitutional Claims
Tenth Amendment: State Sovereignty
The lawsuit argues that the federal government's operations violate the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.[2][3]
- The operations undermine state sovereignty by commandeering local resources
- They interfere with state functions: education, public health, local policing
- They coerce state cooperation through intimidation and occupation
This is a significant constitutional argument. The Tenth Amendment has historically been invoked by conservatives, but the principle cuts both ways: if states have reserved powers, the federal government cannot simply occupy their cities with thousands of armed agents.
First Amendment: Political Targeting and Retaliation
The lawsuit alleges that Minnesota was specifically targeted for its political views and voting habits.[2]
- Minnesota voted against Trump in 2024
- State officials have publicly criticized immigration enforcement
- The administration has made public statements targeting sanctuary jurisdictions
- The scale of operations in Minneapolis is disproportionate to any legitimate enforcement rationale
If the lawsuit can prove political motivation, that Minnesota was singled out because of its politics, this constitutes First Amendment retaliation. The government cannot punish states or cities for their political positions.
What Operation Metro Surge Has Done
The lawsuit documents specific harms from ICE operations in the Twin Cities:[2][4]
Militarized Raids
Armed agents conducting military-style operations in residential neighborhoods. Armored vehicles. Tactical gear. Overwhelming force.
Warrantless Arrests
People arrested without warrants. Agents entering public spaces without proper identification. Constitutional protections ignored.
Racial Profiling
Targeting based on appearance, ethnicity, and national origin. The Somali community specifically targeted.
Excessive Force
Dangerous stops. Aggressive tactics. One protester killed by an ICE agent.
Community and Government Harms
The lawsuit details cascading effects:[2][3]
- Schools disrupted: Children afraid to attend, parents afraid to drop them off
- Public health compromised: People avoiding clinics and hospitals
- Police overtime costs: Local departments forced to spend on public safety response
- Community trust destroyed: Years of police-community relationship building undone
- Economic harm: Workers afraid to go to jobs, businesses affected
The Scale: 2,000+ Agents
Operation Metro Surge is the largest federal immigration enforcement operation in American history.[4]
- 2,000+ federal agents deployed to Minneapolis-St. Paul area
- Began December 2025 and continues
- Multiple agencies: ICE, CBP, ATF, DEA, FBI (initially), U.S. Marshals
- Described as largest ever by federal officials
The FBI reportedly withdrew from the operation after the January 7 shooting, creating conflict between federal agencies.
To put this in perspective: 2,000 armed federal agents is more than the Minneapolis Police Department has total officers. The federal government essentially occupied a major American city.
DHS Response: "Politics Over Public Safety"
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin dismissed the lawsuit as political:[1][3]
"Attorney General Ellison is putting politics above public safety."
McLaughlin also claimed the Tenth Amendment argument was hypocritical, that progressives only invoke states' rights when convenient.
This response is notable for what it doesn't address:
- No denial of political motivation
- No response to First Amendment claims
- No acknowledgment of documented harms
- No explanation for the unprecedented scale
The federal government's defense will play out in court. But the political-rather-than-legal response suggests they may not have strong legal arguments.
Illinois Files Similar Suit
Illinois reportedly filed a similar lawsuit around the same time.[1] If multiple states succeed in federal court, the precedent could:
- Establish limits on federal enforcement operations in states
- Require federal-state coordination rather than occupation
- Create constitutional boundaries around mass enforcement actions
- Provide blueprint for other states to challenge federal overreach
A coalition of states challenging federal immigration enforcement on constitutional grounds would be historically significant.
Legal Prospects: Can Minnesota Win?
The lawsuit faces challenges but has potential:
Strengths
- Unprecedented scale: No precedent for this level of federal occupation
- Documented harms: Specific injuries to state and local interests
- Political statements: Administration officials have made statements suggesting targeting
- First Amendment angle: Retaliation claims are taken seriously by courts
Challenges
- Federal supremacy: Immigration is generally federal domain
- Standing questions: Who has been specifically harmed?
- Political question doctrine: Courts often defer on immigration policy
- Conservative judiciary: Trump-appointed judges may be hostile
The temporary restraining order will be the first test. If a court issues an injunction halting operations, even temporarily, it would be a major victory and signal that the constitutional claims have merit.
What This Means for the Resistance
Minnesota's lawsuit represents a new front in resistance to mass deportation:
- Legal fight: States can challenge federal overreach in court
- Coalition building: Multiple states acting together
- Constitutional framing: Immigration enforcement as a constitutional rights issue
- State power: Governors and AGs have tools to fight back
This is distinct from sanctuary city policies, which simply decline to assist federal enforcement. Minnesota is actively suing to stop the federal government. It's offensive, not defensive.
Historical Context: States vs. Federal Overreach
States challenging federal overreach has a long and complicated history:
- Nullification Crisis (1832): South Carolina tried to nullify federal tariffs
- Civil Rights Era: Southern states invoked states' rights to resist desegregation
- Marijuana legalization: States asserting power over federal drug policy
- Sanctuary policies: States and cities declining federal immigration cooperation
The states' rights argument has been misused historically, particularly in defense of segregation. But the principle itself is constitutional. The Tenth Amendment exists.
The question is whether courts will apply it to limit federal immigration enforcement when wielded by this administration, or whether states' rights only apply when conservatives invoke them.
What You Can Do
Support the Lawsuit
Contact AG Ellison's office to express support. Pressure your own state's AG to consider similar action.
Document ICE Activity
Record encounters (you have the right to film in public). Report to advocacy organizations and the ACLU.
Protect Those at Risk
Know your rights. Share information. Build community networks.
Political Pressure
Contact federal representatives. Demand oversight hearings. Support candidates who will resist.
Personal Digital Security
The surveillance continues regardless of lawsuits. Protect yourself:
- Use Signal for encrypted communication
- Use Tor for anonymous browsing
- Use a VPN to hide your location
- Lock down social media: private accounts, no location sharing
The Stakes
Minnesota v. DHS is more than a lawsuit about immigration. It's a test of constitutional limits.
- If Minnesota loses: The federal government can deploy thousands of armed agents to any city, for any length of time, targeting any community, with no meaningful constraint.
- If Minnesota wins: States have tools to resist federal overreach. Constitutional limits on executive power still mean something.
The 2,000 agents in Minneapolis aren't just enforcing immigration law. They're testing whether there are any limits left. Whether the Constitution constrains this administration. Whether states can protect their communities.
AG Ellison is taking that fight to court. The answer will shape American federalism for a generation.
References
- MPR News - Minnesota Sues DHS, Seeks to Halt ICE Operations (January 2026)
- City of Minneapolis - Federal Lawsuit Against DHS Filed (January 2026)
- CBS News Minnesota - AG Ellison Files Constitutional Challenge (January 2026)
- Military.com - Minnesota Sues Over Federal Immigration Operations (January 2026)