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

2026.01.26 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**