Her's the full text of the 80 page January 12, 2026 federal court complaint against ICE and KRISTI NOEM by the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota:
CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 80
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
STATE OF MINNESOTA, by and
through its Attorney General Keith
Ellison, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, and
CITY OF ST. PAUL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; JOHN CONDON, in
his official capacity as Acting Executive
Associate Director of Homeland Security
Investigations; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; TODD LYONS, in
his official capacity as Acting Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; MARCOS
CHARLES, in his official capacity as
Acting Executive Associate
Director, Enforcement and Removal
Operations; U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; RODNEY
SCOTT, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection; U.S. Customs and
Border Protection; GREGORY BOVINO,
in his official capacity as Commander of
the U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Border
Patrol; DAVID EASTERWOOD, in his
official capacity as Acting Director, Saint
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 80
INTRODUCTION
1. In December 2025, the federal government initiated “Operation Metro
Surge,” an unprecedented deployment of federal immigration enforcement agents from
numerous agencies of Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to the
State of Minnesota, including into the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Operation
Metro Surge has instilled fear among people living, working and visiting the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul metro area (the “Twin Cities”). Thousands of armed and masked DHS agents
have stormed the Twin Cities to conduct militarized raids and carry out dangerous, illegal,
and unconstitutional stops and arrests in sensitive public places, including schools and
hospitals—all under the guise of lawful immigration enforcement.
2. Defendants claim this unprecedented surge of immigration agents is
necessary to fight fraud. In reality, the massive deployment of armed agents to Minnesota
bears no connection to that stated objective and instead reflects an alarming escalation of
the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions towards the state.
3. Defendants claim to have deployed over 2,000 DHS agents to the Twin
Cities—a number that greatly exceeds the number of sworn police officers that
Minneapolis and Saint Paul have, combined. Operation Metro Surge is, in essence, a
federal invasion of the Twin Cities.
4. This operation is driven by nothing more than the Trump Administration’s
desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points—at the direct expense of
Plaintiffs’ residents. Defendants’ actions appear designed to provoke community outrage,
sow fear, and inflict emotional distress, and they are interfering with the ability of state and
2CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 80
local officials to protect and care for their residents. After weeks of escalation, including a
DHS agent shooting into an occupied vehicle on December 21, 2025, in Saint Paul, a U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agent shot and killed a Minneapolis
resident on January 7, 2026.
5. The Tenth Amendment gives the State of Minnesota and its subdivisions,
including the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, inviolable sovereign authority to protect
the health and wellbeing of all those who reside, work, or visit within their borders. The
people of Minnesota are entitled to basic safety and dignity in their communities. They
have the right to move about their daily lives confident that their constitutional rights and
civil liberties will remain intact and will not be infringed. They have the right to go to work,
take their children to school, and move through public and private spaces free from fear of
violence against themselves or their loved ones by their federal government. They are
entitled to access city services and use city facilities without being harassed by federal
agents in parking lots. They expect that law enforcement, whether federal, state, or local,
will follow the law, avoid creating dangerous and chaotic circumstances, and conduct itself
in a manner that distinguishes officers from masked criminals. Indeed, being free from
unlawful seizures, excessive force and retaliation are not a list of aspirations Minnesotans
deserve; these are rights enshrined within state and federal laws.
6. When the federal government itself violates legal rights and civic norms on
such a broad scale and public panic is high, state and city governments bear the costs—
both tangible and intangible. Defendants’ agents’ reckless tactics endanger the public
safety, health, and welfare of all Minnesotans. Additionally, Defendants’ agents’
3CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 80
inflammatory and unlawful policing tactics provoke the protests the federal government
seeks to suppress.
7. The unlawful tactics used by Defendants’ agents have left members of
Plaintiffs’ communities afraid to shop, go to work, attend school, access basic government
services, or otherwise live their lives. They have also resulted in school closures across
the Twin Cities due to safety concerns.
8. The unlawful tactics used by Defendants’ agents also undermine public trust
in state and local law enforcement because individuals confuse Defendants with local
police. Deteriorating public trust in local law enforcement has serious consequences: it
suppresses the reporting and prosecution of crime, especially for immigrant populations.
Defendants’ agents’ tactics also sap state and local resources when local law enforcement
officers are called away from their important work to respond to avoidable incidents
Defendants’ agents cause.
9. Plaintiffs bring this suit asking the Court to enjoin further legal violations
and unlawful escalations by Defendants and prevent further harms to Plaintiffs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has jurisdiction over this Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.
The Court has further remedial authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201(a) and 2202.
11. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1391(e)(1).
Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities. Plaintiffs
4CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 80
are governments within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this district.
12. Defendants are not entitled to immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims.
PARTIES
I. PLAINTIFFS
13. Plaintiff State of Minnesota is a sovereign state of the United States of
America. Minnesota is represented by and through its chief legal officer, Attorney General
Keith Ellison, who is authorized to sue on the State’s behalf, including on behalf of its
public schools and its citizens. Minn. Stat. § 8.01.
14. Plaintiff City of Minneapolis (“Minneapolis”) is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota. It is a
home rule charter city. Minneapolis is the largest city in Minnesota and one of its most
diverse.
15. Plaintiff City of Saint Paul (“Saint Paul”) is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota. It is a
home rule charter city. Saint Paul is a first-class city, the second-largest city in Minnesota,
and the capital of the State of Minnesota. Saint Paul is highly diverse and is home to the
largest urban Hmong population in the country.
II. DEFENDANTS
16. Defendant Kristi Noem is Secretary of DHS and is charged with the
supervision and management of all decisions and actions of that agency.
5CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 80
17. Defendant John Condon is the Acting Executive Associate Director of
Homeland Security Investigations (“HIS”), an agency within DHS.
18. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet agency within
the executive branch of the United States government. 28 U.S.C. § 501.
19. Defendant Todd M. Lyons is the Acting Director and the senior official
currently performing the duties of the Director of the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency. ICE is an agency within DHS. Its stated purpose is
to “[p]rotect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to
preserve national security and public safety.”
20. Defendant Marcos Charles is Acting Executive Associate Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations within ICE.
21. Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an agency of
DHS.
22. Defendant Rodney Scott is the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”). CBP is an agency within DHS. Its stated mission is to
“[p]rotect the American people, safeguard our borders, and enhance the nation’s economic
prosperity.”
23. Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection is an agency of the
Department of Homeland Security.
24. Defendant Gregory Bovino is the “Chief Patrol Agent” of CBP’s El Centro
Sector. Defendant Noem has named Defendant Bovino, “Commander-at-Large.” On
6CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 80
information and belief, Defendant Bovino has direct responsibility for DHS activities in
the Twin Cities.
25. Defendant U.S. Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement agency under the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
26. Defendant David Easterwood is the Saint Paul Field Office Acting Director
of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE. The Saint Paul Field Office is
responsible for ICE activities in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota.
27. Each individual Defendant is sued in their official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS TARGETED MINNESOTA BECAUSE OF
ANIMUS.
28. President Trump and others within the Trump Administration, including
Defendants, have repeatedly used their public platforms to attack Plaintiffs, their people,
and their elected officials, both within the context of immigration and beyond.
29. On information and belief, Defendants’ decision to target the Twin Cities
with an unprecedent surge of federal agents has been motivated by a desire to retaliate
against perceived political enemies rather than good faith immigration enforcement, public
safety, or law enforcement concerns.
30. On Friday January 9, 2026, President Trump expressed the root of his
displeasure in plain terms during a recorded interview: he essentially claimed that
7CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 80
Minnesota is “corrupt” and “crooked” because its officials accurately reported election
results and those results did not declare him the winner.
1
31. President Trump did not win the majority of votes cast in Minnesota in 2016,
2020, or 2024. His claims to the contrary, in the context of being asked to explain actions
his administration is taking in Minnesota, suggests a desire to punish the State for voting
for his opponents. Even before the January 9, 2026, interview spelled this connection out
so explicitly, President Trump repeatedly demonstrated personal animosity toward
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in the 2024
election.
32. For example, in the wake of the assassination of former State Speaker of the
House Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, President Trump said that
Governor Walz is “so whacked out, I’m not calling him.”2
33. President Trump has called Governor Walz a “dangerously liberal
extremist,” and recently called him “the seriously retarded Governor of Minnesota, Tim
Walz.”3
1 President Trump Participates in a Meeting with Oil and Gas Executives, The
White House (Youtube, Jan. 9, 2026),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaE8lw8_x30&t=30s (relevant portion beginning at
54:14 and ending at 56:05.)
2 Cheyanne M. Daniels, Trump won’t call ‘whacked out’ Walz after Minnesota
shooter charged, Politico, June 17, 2025,
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/17/trump-walz-phone-call-00410141.
3 Zak Failla, Trump Uses Slur Against Gov. Tim Walz in Thanksgiving Truth Social
Tirade; Walz Fires Back, Msn.com, Nov. 28, 2025, https://perma.cc/XG2R-QDWL
8CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 80
34. President Trump has also called Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey a “fool.”4
II. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS A PATTERN OF TARGETING DEMOCRAT-
LED JURISDICTIONS WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, RATHER THAN
REGIONS WITH HIGHER NUMBERS OF NONCITIZEN IMMIGRANTS.
35. Minneapolis and Saint Paul are now the latest of the cities widely considered
to be Democratic cities with elected leaders who do not politically align with Trump to be
flooded with federal agents. Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., have
experienced their own influxes of federal agents, and Defendant DHS has made clear that
ICE “will continue to surge into sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide.”5
36. Since retaking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued several
executive orders intended to deter states and localities from implementing or keeping so-
called “sanctuary” policies or laws—laws that preclude components of state or local
governments from participating in federal civil immigration enforcement in various ways.
4 Howard Thompson, Pres. Trump rails against Somalis: ‘They’ve destroyed
Minnesota’
, Fox 9, Dec. 3, 2025, https://www.fox9.com/news/pres-trump-rails-against-
somalis-destroyed-minnesota-dec-2025.
5 DHS (@DHSgov), X (Jan. 8, 2026 9:28 AM CT), https://perma.cc/84T8-B5VZ
9CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 80
37. The Trump Administration, including Defendants DHS and Noem, also
repeatedly criticized Minnesota and elected leaders Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob
Frey for being “sanctuary politicians”6 with “sanctuary policies.”7
38. In accordance with the President’s effort to defund “sanctuary cities,” the
Trump administration, acting through various federal agencies, has sought to assert a
sweeping entitlement to use state law enforcement officers for federal immigration
enforcement. It has done so by requiring Minnesota and other states to agree to cooperate
with federal immigration enforcement activities as a condition for receiving billions of
dollars in federal funding.
39. For example, beginning in March 2025, DHS and its sub-agencies, including
Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), sought to upend the state-federal
emergency management system, holding critical emergency preparedness and response
funding hostage unless Minnesota and other states promised to devote their criminal
enforcement and other state agency resources to the federal government’s civil immigration
enforcement.
40. Forced to choose between foregoing federal funds or facing compulsory
diversion of limited law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration law beyond
6 DHS (@DHSgov), X (Oct. 27, 2025 8:57 AM CT), https://perma.cc/8H4T-KZD4;
Secretary Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem), X (Oct. 24, 2025 5:16 PM CT),
https://x.com/KristiNoem/status/1981847364827746413; Secretary DHS (@DHSgov), X
(July 9, 2025 11:48 AM CT), https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1942989123544924541.
7 DHS (@DHSgov), X (Dec. 5, 2025 9:50 AM CT),
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1996970373078720774.
10CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 80
what Minnesota law allows, Minnesota, with other states, brought suit to challenge those
coercive conditions. State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 25-cv-
00206 (D.R.I.) (filed May 13, 2025). In September 2025, the court granted summary
judgment to the states, holding among other things that those conditions violated the
Constitution and were tantamount to “economic dragooning.” Illinois v. Fed. Emergency
Mgmt. Agency, No. CV 25-206 WES, 2025 WL 2716277, at *14 (D.R.I. Sept. 24, 2025).
41. Minnesota and other states have similarly challenged coercive immigration-
enforcement conditions by the U.S. Department of Transportation, California v. U.S. Dept.
of Transportation, 25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.) (filed May 13, 2025) and the U.S. Department of
Justice (“DOJ”), New Jersey v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 25-cv-00404 (D.R.I.) (filed
August 18, 2025).
42. The funding for Minnesota jeopardized by these coercive actions by the
Trump administration totals over $2 billion. Those funds are critical to the state’s services
to its residents and used by Minnesota to maintain state and local roads and bridges, protect
against and respond to natural disasters, and provide emergency shelter to crime victims
and conduct sexual assault forensic exams, among other things.
43. In the midst of these immigration-related federal defunding actions and
responsive lawsuits, DHS published, on May 29, 2025, a list of 500 purported “sanctuary
jurisdictions” around the country. It accused them of “shamefully obstructing” the Trump
administration’s deportation plans and “shielding dangerous criminal aliens.”
44. However, days later, based on widespread news reporting as early as June 1,
that first sanctuary jurisdiction list was gone. As reported, very soon after publishing the
11CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 12 of 80
list, the Trump Administration faced objections from Republican stronghold jurisdictions
that found themselves on the list. DHS quickly and quietly removed the list from the
website where it had been posted.
45. Less than two weeks later, the Trump Administration posted a new version
of its sanctuary jurisdiction target list. That August 5, 2025, publication shortened the list
from about 500 to just 35 jurisdictions. The new sanctuary “jurisdiction” list targeted
twelve states (including Illinois, California, Oregon, and Minnesota), and the District of
Columbia.
46. Although DOJ stated its intention in pressuring “sanctuary jurisdictions” was
to “compel compliance with federal law,” in reality, the Administration’s efforts sought to
impermissibly force sovereign states like Minnesota to disavow their own laws and
subjugate to the political whim of the Trump Administration. The August 5, 2025,
publication specifically bragged about the success of a “threatening” letter that coerced
Louisville, Kentucky to revoke its “sanctuary policies.”
47. In September 2025, the Administration went so far as to sue Plaintiffs in
federal court for these so-called “sanctuary policies.”8
48. In addition, and shortly after issuing the “sanctuary jurisdictions” list,
Defendants mobilized National Guard troops in California, Illinois and Oregon. Multiple
courts enjoined these mobilizations as unlawful. Defendants pivoted resources and efforts
to Minnesota after the Supreme Court blocked the Trump Administration from deploying
8 United States v. State of Minnesota et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-03798 (D. Minn. 2025)
12CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 13 of 80
the National Guard in Illinois, Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 2025 WL 3715211 (Dec. 23,
2025) (mem.). On December 31, 2025, President Trump announced that he was
withdrawing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland but left the door
open to sending federal forces “in a much different and stronger form.” A few days later,
on January 4, 2026, Defendants singled out Minnesota for its largest ever immigration
operation.
49. Defendants have targeted Minnesota for the latest unprecedented surge not
based on any real or legitimate concern for the enforcement of immigration laws or
promotion of public safety, but rather in service of Defendants’ goal to score political
points.
50. If the Defendants’ true goal was to detain and deport dangerous individuals,
they would not accomplish it through what DHS describes as “consensual” (namely:
random) encounters with people on the street. And if the Defendants’ true goal was to
prioritize detaining and deporting the highest number of immigrants with no legal right to
remain in the U.S., they would not be targeting Minnesota for what Defendants refer to as
the largest ever immigration operation. Data suggests that just over 1.5% of Minnesota’s
total population are noncitizen immigrants without legal status, less than half the national
average rate.
9 On information and belief, that small percentage includes individuals whose
presence has been long known to DHS and who have kept regularly scheduled
9 Cameron Macht, The Role of Undocumented Immigrants in Minnesota’s
Workforce, MN Department of Employment and Economic Development (March 2025),
https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/mar-2025/immigrants.jsp
13CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 14 of 80
appointments with DHS. Many states have higher rates of reported non-citizens relative to
their populations, including Utah, Texas, and Florida. The administration has made no
similar efforts to surge federal immigration agent deployments into cities in Utah, Texas,
or Florida. Incredibly, the reported non-citizen population of Utah, Florida, and Texas
(combined together) is nearly the size of the entire population of Minnesota.10
51. Available public reporting also contradicts DHS’s public claims that
Operation Metro Surge is focused on apprehending “the worst of the worst” or known
targets of fraud investigations. Many of DHS’ arrestees in Minnesota lack any criminal
conviction history. Indeed, for many of DHS’ arrestees in Minnesota, the only laws they
are alleged to have violated are the underlying immigration laws DHS seeks to enforce.
III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS USING “FRAUD” AS PRETEXT FOR ITS
UNLAWFUL ACTIONS IN MINNESOTA.
52. At some point in or around November 2025, President Trump recognized an
opportunity to exploit a high-profile COVID-19 era fraud scheme that has been
investigated and prosecuted in Minnesota to exact retribution on perceived political
enemies and more aggressively pursue his immigration policies.
53. The case in question is generally referred to as the “Feeding Our Future”
fraud. The fraud was perpetrated between 2020 and early 2022 and targeted a USDA-
funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2022, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) stated in a sworn search warrant affidavit that it
10 State Immigration Data Profiles, Migration Policy Institute,
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/state-immigration-data-profiles
14CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 15 of 80
was the Minnesota Department of Education (“MDE”) (the state agency administering the
USDA funds) that affirmatively brought the State’s concerns to the FBI in April 2021 and
ultimately provided documents and testimony to support federal investigation and
prosecution.11 MDE had also referred the matter to USDA-OIG even earlier, seeking
federal assistance by the fall of 2020, but MDE escalated its referral to the FBI when the
USDA-OIG took no action. In September 2022, DOJ ultimately announced federal charges
against 47 defendants for their alleged roles in the fraud scheme, many of whom pled guilty
or were later convicted at trial, and additional charging and convictions have followed.12
Far from a scenario where a state agency hid fraud or obstructed investigations, this case
actually shows a reasonable partnership between state and federal investigative resources.
54. Yet, while the “Feeding our Future” fraud case was in no way new, and in
fact was a case involving collaboration between state and federal resources to bring
perpetrators to justice, President Trump and others in his Administration have repurposed
the case in recent months in order to use the pretext of “fraud” concerns as an excuse to
engage in all manner of unlawful actions. Pertinent to this lawsuit, the Trump
Administration recognized that the Feeding our Future scheme involved a large number of
11 See Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant, Case No. 22-MJ-040 TNL (D.
Minn. Jan. 20, 2022) at ¶¶ 51-54
12 U.S. Attorney Announces Federal Charges Against 47 Defendants in $250
Million Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme, U.S. Department of Justice, September 20,
2022, https://perma.cc/A9FN-55GS; see also Katrina Pross, Here’s everyone who’s been
sentenced in the Feeding Our Future fraud, Sahan Journal, Jan. 24, 2025,
https://perma.cc/5MQ5-K6DE
15CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 16 of 80
Somali immigrants, and since then, have used the case to disparage the entire Somali
community, and Minnesota’s Democratic politicians and policies.
55. On November 21, 2025, President Trump posted on social media that
Minnesota “is a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity,” and that he was therefore
“terminating, effective immediately, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS Program) for
Somalis in Minnesota.”13 Then, on Thanksgiving Day, President Trump posted a lengthy
screed, falsely claiming that “Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are
completely taking over the once great State of Minnesota. Somalian gangs are roving the
streets looking for ‘prey’ as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and
houses hoping against hope that they will be left alone . . . .” 14
56. Several days later, Vice President J.D. Vance posted on social media that “A
welfare fraud scandal in Minnesota reveals that large numbers of new arrivals aren’t
assimilating and are funneling our tax dollars to literal terrorist groups.”15
57. Then, on December 6, 2025, Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller
stated explicitly that the fraud case would be a pivotal talking point in the Trump
Administration’s effort to reduce the number of immigrants within the United States.
13 Ryan Mancini, Trump to end legal protections for Somalis in Minnesota, The
Hill Nov. 22, 2025, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5618582-donald-trump-
legal-protections-somalia-minnesota/
14 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Nov. 27, 2025, 10:27 PM
CT), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115625429081411360
15 Sean Hannity Show, Stephen Miller: This scandal will ‘rock the CORE’ of
politics, Fox News (Dec. 6, 2025) (available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tps5OvCkfw) (relevant portion beginning at 2:20
time stamp and ending at 6:47.)
16CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 17 of 80
Specifically, Miller stated in an interview that the Feeding our Future fraud case showed
that the Democratic party had used migration as a weapon against the American people
and proved that this country should stop “third world migration.”
58. On January 5, 2026, President Trump reacted to Governor Walz’s
announcement that he would not seek reelection with a social media post that accused the
governor—without any support—of being “caught, REDHANDED, along with Ilhan
Omar, and others of his Somali friends, stealing Tens of Billions of Taxpayer Dollars.”16
The post also criticized Democratic governors of other states.
59. The Trump Administration’s new focus on “fraud” in Minnesota is just its
latest attempt to attack Democratic politicians and more aggressively and recklessly
implement their immigration enforcement agenda. Even Defendant Noem has admitted
that DHS is solely aiming the pretextual spear of fighting fraud at states led by Democratic
governors, posting on X that “[w]e will root out every case of fraud we find from
Minneapolis to California to New York.”17
IV. “OPERATION METRO SURGE.
”
60. On December 6, 2025, Defendant Noem posted on the social media platform,
X, the following: “DHS has surged law enforcement to Minneapolis and has already
arrested more than 1,500 crooks and creeps: murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and gang
16 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Jan. 5, 2026, 1:13 PM
CT), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115844083693194821.
17 Secretary Kristi Noem @KristiNoem, X (Jan. 6, 2026 6:05 PM CT),
https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/2008691367375982905
17CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 18 of 80
members. We will continue to fulfill @POTUS Trump’s promise to Make America Safe
Again.” 18
61. Defendant DHS similarly posted the following on X, which Defendant Noem
reposted: “The largest DHS operation is happening right now in Minnesota. @POTUS
Trump and @Sec_Noem have rallied DHS law enforcement personnel to keep Americans
safe and ERADICATE fraud. We’re not leaving until the problem is solved.”19
62. To initiate the “operation,” Defendants deployed at least 100 ICE and HSI
agents from across the country to the Twin Cities. Since then, public reporting has indicated
that Defendant Noem has deployed as many as 2,000 DHS agents to the Twin Cities alone.
63. Defendants acknowledge that the operation is the largest of its kind. On
January 6, 2026, DHS posted on the social media platform X a clip from a television
interview of Defendant Lyons in which he describes ICE’s operation in Minnesota and
states, “We have the largest immigration operation ever taking place right now.”
Defendants acknowledged that these agents were “taking the fight to these sanctuary
jurisdictions . . . .”20
64. Defendant Bovino and additional CBP agents have now also been deployed
to Minneapolis to assist in the expanded Operation Metro Surge. And on January 8, 2026,
18 Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem), X, (Jan. 6, 2026 7:52 PM CT)
https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/2008718230039450008.
19 DHS (@DHSgov), X, (Jan. 6, 2026 3:21 PM CT)
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2008650038847959106
20 DHS (@DHSgov), X, (Jan. 6, 2026, 12:02 PM CT)
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2008600031620952221
18CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 19 of 80
the Trump Administration reportedly deployed more than 100 additional CBP agents to
Minnesota from operations in Chicago and New Orleans after an ICE agent shot and killed
a Minnesotan woman in Minneapolis.21
65. Since the beginning days of Operation Metro Surge, the increased presence
of Defendants’ agents has been marked by increasingly inflammatory rhetoric from
President Trump and others within the Administration about people of Somali heritage.
These range from direct comments in interviews and speeches, to juvenile memes posted
on official social media accounts:
a. The day after Operation Metro Surge commenced, President Trump
called Somali Americans “garbage” stating that he did not want them in the
country.22
b. Several days later, on December 6, 2025, Deputy Director of ICE
Madison Sheahan described “Operation Metro Surge” as “cleaning up
Governor Walz’s mess.”23
c. Also in December 2025, Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller
made disparaging remarks about Somali people during a television interview,
stating, “We should not be shocked, when you import a population whose
primary occupation is pirate, that they are going to come here and steal
21 Hamed Aleaziz and Madelein Ngo, Trump Administration Deploying More
Border Patrol Agents to Minnesota, N.Y. Times (Jan. 8, 2026),
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/border-patrol-minnesota-trump.html.
22 N’dea Yancey-Bragg, A 'volcano' of controversy has hit the Minnesota Somali
community, USA Today Dec. 7, 2025, https://perma.cc/4BFE-QEL4
23 Madison Sheahan (@ICEDeputy) X, (Dec. 6, 2025, 4:55 PM CT),
https://perma.cc/3QPL-MZ6K|
19CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 20 of 80
everything we have.”24
d. On December 31, 2025, President Trump and the White House’s
social media accounts both shared a claim that “Much of the Minnesota
Fraud, up to 90%, is caused by people that came into our Country, Illegally,
from Somalia. ‘Congresswoman’ Omar, an ungrateful loser who only
complains and never contributes, is one of the many scammers. Did she
really marry her brother? Lowlifes like this can only be a liability to our
Country’s greatness. Send them back from where they came, Somalia...”25 |
e. Also on December 31, 2025, Defendant DHS posted on social media,
“We will not live like this anymore,” accompanied by a meme depicting
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey standing in front of a pile of garbage with a
speech bubble containing Somali script. 26
66. Defendants Noem, DHS, and ICE have claimed that the expanded
deployment is aimed at rooting out fraud in Minnesota.27 Defendant Noem has claimed
that “the amount of fraud in Minnesota is unprecedented” and the additional 2000 DHS
agents that have been deployed to Minnesota are to “help get to the bottom of it.”28 And
24 Jesse Waters Primetime, ‘GO HOME’: Stephen Miller decries ‘pirate’ Somalis
amid alleged fraud scandal, Fox News (Dec. 19, 2025 (available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqs42DviZ3Q) (relevant portion beginning at 0:01
and ending at 0:36.)
25 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Truth Social, (Dec. 31, 2025, 9:55 AM
CT), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115814993074933464; White
House (@WhiteHouse), X, (Dec. 31, 2025, 10:10 AM CT), https://perma.cc/SYE3-
TAQT
26 Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Dec. 31, 2025, 12:55 PM CT),
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2006439129291304998.
27 Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem), X (Jan. 6, 2026, 1:26 PM CT),
https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/2008621337678586036?s=20; Newsmax, Acting ICE
Director: We are being threatened by criminals National Report (YouTube, Jan. 6, 2026),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvaI4TfLq0w.
28 Jesse Watters Primetime, Minnesota whistleblowers ignored or bullied into
silence: Kristi Noem, Fox News (Jan. 6, 2026),
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6387328026112.
20CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 21 of 80
the expansion comes just days after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
announced a pause in all federal child care funding to Minnesota and the Small Business
Administration announced a freeze on funding to Small Business Development Centers.
67. The White House has similarly expressed that the 2,000 deployed DHS
agents have been sent to Minnesota to help with “targeted, door-to-door investigations at
locations of suspected fraud.”29
68. But Defendants’ investigations have not been “targeted.” DHS agents have
been conducting raids at job sites and businesses, detaining and deporting individuals while
they perform essential work that directly benefits Plaintiffs’ communities. DHS agents also
appear to be conducting general sweeps and detaining people within their path based on
their race and ethnicity. Defendants’ conduct further undermines the notion that they are
focusing efforts on individuals with violent criminal histories or known targets in fraud
investigations—particularly where fraud allegations are primarily investigated via
reviewing documents, not by roving groups of DHS agents dressed in riot gear and military
fatigues.
69. By way of one example, public reporting indicates that on December 13,
2025, DHS agents surrounded a Minnesota residence where a roofing crew was at work,
and without appearing to know the names or identities of the laborers on the roof, engaged
in a multi-hour standoff in freezing temperatures demanding that the laborers come down.
29 Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes New Department of Justice
Division for National Fraud Enforcement, The White House (Jan. 8, 2026),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-
establishes-new-department-of-justice-division-for-national-fraud-enforcement/.
21CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 22 of 80
In recent days there are also reports of blockades at shopping areas where roving groups of
DHS agents block all traffic and demand the citizenship of riders in every car—far away
from where border checkpoints could be lawful.
V. UNLAWFUL, AGGRESSIVE TACTICS CHARACTERIZING “OPERATION METRO
SURGE.
”
70. Defendants’ agents carrying out immigration enforcement in Minnesota and
the Twin Cities are engaging in widespread unlawful conduct, as they have in other cities
like Chicago and Los Angeles where they have surged federal agents. See, e.g., Chicago
Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25C12173, 2025 WL 3240782 *4-6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2025);
L.A. Press Club v. Noem, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1045 (C.D. Cal. 2025).
71. As part of Operation Metro Surge, Defendants’ agents have racially profiled
Minnesotans, resulting in unconstitutional and unlawful detentions of Minnesotans.
72. For example: on December 10, 2025, two masked DHS agents tackled and
arrested Mubashir, a Somali American man; one agent put him in a choke hold. 30 DHS
agents arrested Mubashir despite Mubashir repeatedly asking that he be allowed to show
them his legal identification. DHS agents then detained Mubashir for two hours for no
apparent reason other than his perceived national origin.
73. A similar incident appears to have occurred on January 8, 2026. Current
reporting indicates DHS agents took two young Hispanic men to the ground and
handcuffed them after DHS agents observed them working at the front of a Target retail
30 Katelyn Vue, U.S. citizen offered to show I.D. but was arrested by immigration
officers in Cedar-Riverside, Sahan Journal (Dec. 9, 2025), https://perma.cc/TTM9-AZVA
22CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 23 of 80
store. Video from the scene shows agents forcing one of the men into a DHS vehicle after
the man yells that he is a U.S. citizen. Public reporting also indicates that family members
of one of the men placed calls to ICE offices reiterating that he was a U.S. citizen but that
DHS agents nonetheless took and held him for hours at an unknown location, with no
notice to the family of where he had been taken or when he would return.31
74. Also on January 8, 2026, CBP agents surrounded and questioned a driver at
the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and asked him if he is a U.S. Citizen. A CBP agent is heard
on the video stating, “I can hear you don’t have the same accent as me, that’s why I’m
asking” and “I want to know where you were born.”32
75. Also on January 8, 2026, DHS agents arrested a 20-year-old man in
Robbinsdale, Minnesota, for seemingly no other reason than his perceived national
origin.
33 The man, whose father was born in Mexico, was himself born in Minnesota. DHS
agents held the man in federal custody for over six hours before releasing him.
31 See Felicity Dachel, Federal agents take 2 into custody at Richfield Target, Kare
11 (Jan. 8, 2026) (available at https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-
minnesota/federal-agents-richfield-target/89-074f28c7-c04f-4392-9165-08ca304b0f39
(“the men told witnesses they were U.S. citizens”).
32 FREEDOMNEWS TV – NATIONAL / SCOOTERCASTER, “You want my
ID??” Bovino and CBP Checks Citizenship at Minneapolis Airport (YouTube Jan. 7,
2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QM2hqcfOis.
33 Kim Hyatt and Sofia Barnett, U.S. citizen swept up in ICE enforcement as Twin
Cities operation continues, The Minnesota Star Tribune (Jan. 8, 2026),
https://www.startribune.com/us-citizen-arrested-ice-day-after-fatal-shooting-renee-good-
twin-cities-immigration-operation/601560460.
23CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 24 of 80
76. In another incident of racial profiling, DHS agents approached a team of four
Minneapolis Public Works employees, working in Minneapolis and wearing City uniforms
and badges. The agents asked the three nonwhite City employees for identification and
asked them each questions about their citizenship and place of birth. The agents did not ask
to see any identification or ask any questions of the fourth employee, who was white.
77. Additional public reporting from this week describes separate instances in
which Native Americans have been detained or taken into DHS custody, including: four
individuals reported to be members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who DHS agents apparently
accosted on a public roadway.34
78. Of course, the full scale to which citizens are being detained or taken into
custody based on race and ethnicity is difficult to track given the scope of Operation Metro
Surge and the absence of any obvious centralized, trustworthy place for victims of profiling
to report.
79. As of December 13, 2025, the ACLU of Minnesota reported that it knew of
“at least a dozen” U.S. citizens of Somali descent being detained as part of Operation Metro
Surge—a pattern highlighting unlawful racial profiling practices have been terrorizing the
Twin Cities for weeks.35
34 Nick Lentz, 4 members of Oglala Sioux Tribe detained by ICE in Minneapolis,
president says, CBS News (Jan. 9, 2026),
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/oglala-sioux-tribe-members-detained-ice-
minneapolis/
35 Emmy Martin, As ICE activity intensifies, some Somali students lower their
profile, The Minnesota Star Tribune (Dec. 13, 2025), https://www.startribune.com/as-ice-
activity-intensifies-some-somali-students-lower-their-profile/601542204.
24CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 25 of 80
80. Plaintiffs have also received reports of DHS agents using their vehicles in
unsafe, aggressive ways that either intentionally or recklessly risk injury to others or
actively cause collisions. For example, in Minneapolis, there have been multiple calls
related to DHS agents violating traffic laws, driving dangerously, ramming vehicles, and
getting into traffic accidents.
81. DHS agents have also conducted (or attempted to conduct) warrantless
arrests. On December 5, 2025, DHS agents entered a south Minneapolis restaurant, Hola
Arepa, without a warrant. When asked specifically by the restaurant’s general manager to
present their judicial warrant, the agents attempted to intimidate the restaurant’s employees
by asserting “We don’t need one.”36
82. In another example of unlawful behavior, DHS agents have been observed
changing the license plates on their vehicles. Vehicles associated with federal immigration
efforts have also been spotted by legal observers with different front and back license
plates.
83. Defendants’ agents have also conducted their unlawful acts in ways which
spark public outrage. On December 15, 2025, DHS agents in Minneapolis detained a
woman, and dragged her handcuffed across a frozen road, despite being repeatedly told by
bystanders that she was pregnant.
36 Raya Quttaineh, Owner of Minneapolis restaurant says ICE entered without a
warrant, staff pushed back (Dec. 5, 2025 7:17 AM CT),
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/south-minneapolis-restaurant-ice-entered-
without-warrant-staff-push-back/89-7af99452-0ed8-4de5-9a27-6cb74cdc3e07.
25CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 26 of 80
84. On December 21, 2025, a DHS agent shot at a man in his car in Saint Paul.
85. The foregoing tactics—racial profiling, forceful arrests, warrantless entries,
and aggressive enforcement at sensitive locations—have understandably led to protests.
86. Minnesota is full of civically engaged people, across the political spectrum—
it has one of the highest rates of volunteerism in the country,37 one of the highest rates of
voter turnout, and a documented ethos for civic engagement and neighbors helping
neighbors that exceeds the national average.38
87. Faced with concern that state-sanctioned illegal conduct may go unchecked
and that race and national origin discrimination is harming their neighbors, Minnesotans
have hit the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out, observe, and
record.
88. Defendants have engaged in unlawful conduct towards protestors and legal
observers too.
89. On December 6, 2025, a Minneapolis woman volunteering as an observer
followed a DHS vehicle. When she parked, she was boxed in by other DHS vehicles and
37 Sarah Ritter, Minnesota ranks No. 3 in volunteerism nation as nonprofits
see rebound, The Star Tribune, November 29, 2024 (available at:
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-ranks-third-volunteering-report/601188453)
38 Mary Murphy, Why does Minnesota lead the country in voter turnout -- and
which areas lead Minnesota? Inforum (Oct. 26, 2024)
https://www.inforum.com/news/minnesota/why-does-minnesota-lead-the-country-in-
voter-turnout-and-which-areas-lead-minnesota); see also U.S. Census, New U.S. Census
Bureau and Americorps Research Tracks Virtual Volunteering for First Time, (Nov. 19,
2024) https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/11/civic-engagement-and-
volunteerism.html
26CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 27 of 80
confronted. In the recorded interaction that followed, a DHS agent told her she was
breaking the law and threatened to arrest her if she continued.39
90. On December 9, 2025, a Minneapolis woman who heard DHS was patrolling
her community went to the impacted area and stood on a public sidewalk. While at a safe
distance, she asked, “Are you ICE?” Seconds later, she was forced to the ground,
handcuffed, detained, shackled, and left in a cell for hours, after having her wedding ring
cut off.40
91. Shortly before Renee Good was shot and killed on January 7, 2026, a
different scene unfolded less than a mile away. An attorney for the State of Minnesota with
expertise in civil rights law witnessed an apparent DHS arrest unfolding, and she
approached the scene in order to act as a witness. She identified herself as an attorney and
stood a safe distance from the arrest. A DHS agent jumped out of his vehicle, unloaded
entire canisters of pepper spray on her at point blank range, causing such irritation that she
had to strip her clothing off on the scene to reduce the effect.
92. On January 9, 2026, a white pastor of a Minneapolis church has described
seeing DHS agents approach a Hispanic woman. The pastor reports that when he told DHS
they should take him instead and that he was not afraid, DHS pointed a gun in his face,
39 Jon Collins, ‘Tinted windows and out-of-state plates’: How ICE watchers
look for agents in their neighborhoods, MPR News (Dec. 5, 2025)
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/12/05/twin-cities-ice-watchers-keep-tabs-for-
agents-in-their-neighborhoods).
40 Christopher Magan, ACLU of Minnesota sues ICE over alleged mistreatment of
observers (Dec. 17, 2025), https://www.startribune.com/aclu-of-minnesota-sues-ice-over-
alleged-mistreatment-of-observers/601548112.
27CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 28 of 80
handcuffed him, placed him in the back of a vehicle, and released him after purportedly
saying, “you’re White. You wouldn’t be fun anyway.” 41
93. In addition to the foregoing specific examples, Minneapolis has received at
least eleven 911 calls related to DHS agents engaging in inappropriate force or threats of
force including brandishing guns, pepper spraying, shoving, and using tear gas.
94. DHS, ICE, and CBP have placed a significant public image emphasis on their
aggressive immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota since the scope of Operation
Metro Surge expanded.
95. For example: on January 5, 2026, Defendant Noem herself participated in a
heavily propagandized, videotaped immigration raid in Saint Paul, Minnesota.42
96. Also on January 5, 2026, the White House posted on its official X account
indicating that “President Donald J. Trump and his Administration are UNLEASHING a
relentless assault to dismantle the massive fraud empires built in Minnesota under the
watch of incompetent Democrats like Tim Walz and his Radical Left enablers.”43
97. And on January 6, 2026, DHS, on its official X account, posted simply:
“GOOD MORNING MINNEAPOLIS!” This post was reposted by the official X accounts
of The White House, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The increase in
41 Jessica Hart, Detained pastor says ICE let him go because he’s White, KARE11
(Jan. 9, 2026) (available at https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/detained-pastor-
says-ice-let-him-go-because-hes-white-mn/89-00df6b90-bae8-49b8-b980-941a4ba6ee8b)
42 Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Jan. 6, 2026, 3:21 PM),
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2008650038847959106.
43 The White House (@WhiteHouse), X (Jan. 5, 2026 3:54 PM CT)
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2008296166773948523.
28CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 29 of 80
Defendants’ agents and immigration enforcement actions across the immigrant-populated
neighborhoods of the Twin Cities has caused widespread fear amongst Minnesotans.
VI. JANUARY 7, 2026, ICE FATAL SHOOTING.
98. On January 7, 2026, Jonathan Ross, an ICE agent, shot and killed a
Minnesota resident, Renee Good.
99. The fatal shooting of Renee Good forced the lockdown of Green Central
Elementary School, which was just a few blocks away.44
100. Following the January 7, 2026, fatal shooting, the Trump Administration,
including at least some of Defendants, repeatedly issued statements to create false
narratives of lawlessness in Minnesota and to accuse the victim of “domestic terrorism.”45
101. The Trump Administration also used the horrific events as yet another
opportunity to attack Democrats and Minnesota’s “sanctuary politicians.” President Trump
called Good—without evidence—a “professional agitator” and claimed that she “violently,
willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” The President also blamed the “Radical
44 No school for MPS rest of the week; Apparent ICE presence at Roosevelt High
School causes chaotic scene, KSTP (Jan. 8, 2026, 9:31 AM), https://kstp.com/kstp-
news/top-news/apparent-ice-presence-at-roosevelt-high-school-causes-chaotic-scene/.
45 See, e.g., Kristi Noem calls actions leading up to fatal ICE shooting ‘act of
domestic terrorism’, Fox 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul (YouTube, Jan. 7, 2026),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPVpHDyOXCM; see also Homeland Security
(@DHSgov), X (Jan. 7, 2026) https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2008958123092979817; see
also Acting Ice Director comments on Minneapolis shooting, Newsmax (Youtube Jan. 9,
2026) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wERJwNfTQA (relevant portion beginning
at 2:11 and ending at 3:57).
29CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 30 of 80
Left” for “threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Offices and ICE
Agents on a daily basis” —again without evidence.46
102. In a social media post, Defendant DHS accused Good of an act of “domestic
terrorism” and blamed “[s]anctuary politicians” for “creat[ing] an environment that
encourages rampant assaults on law enforcement.”47 Defendant Noem reposted this
statement on her social media.
103. Despite Good’s killing, DHS agents continued to unlawfully terrorize the
Twin Cities community throughout the day. At around 11:45 a.m. Minneapolis received
911 calls regarding DHS agent activity at a dollar store on Lake Street. DHS agents were
met with unsurprising protests after the fatal shooting two hours earlier but used pepper
spray and rammed vehicles when leaving.
104. Later that same day, community reports and videos posted to social media
show a chaotic scene on Roosevelt High School grounds in Minneapolis when class was
dismissed for the day, and DHS agents dressed in fatigues and riot helmets were firing
pepper spray at individuals in a crowd that included high school students, teachers and
school administrators. Minneapolis Public Schools cancelled school on January 8 and 9,
2026, “due to safety concerns related to [January 7] incidents around the city.”48 These
46 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Jan. 7, 2026, 2:28 PM CT),
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115855701696773990.
47 Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Jan. 7, 2026, 6:23 PM CT),
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2009058387418562922.
48 No school Jan. 8-9 due to safety concerns, Minneapolis Public Schools (Jan. 7,
2026), https://www.mpschools.org/about-mps/news/news-details/~board/minneapolis-
public-schools-news/post/no-school-jan-8-9-due-to-safety-concerns.
30CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 31 of 80
cancellations impacted around 100 schools and 30,000 students. And multiple other
schools cancelled classed or shifted to remote learning on January 9, 2026, amid DHS
activity. Following the January 7 incident, Saint Paul Public Schools canceled field trips
and sports-related events in Minneapolis as well as any events requiring travel through
Minneapolis.49
105. Defendants’ conduct in Minnesota and the Twin Cities is consistent with
abuses in other jurisdictions around the country. On December 9, 2025, U.S. Senator
Richard Blumenthal, ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
released a minority staff report highlighting firsthand accounts of Americans who were
unlawfully assaulted and detained by federal immigration agents.50 The report details
routine unlawful seizures and excessive force resulting in injuries. This national trend is
paired with national reporting and further contributes to Minnesotans’ perceptions and
fears. Locally, Defendants’ unlawful conduct is also reflected in the allegations in the
lawsuit and motion for injunctive relief in Tincher v Noem, which seeks to vindicate the
rights of the Minnesotans who have been unlawfully seized and been the victims of
excessive force by federal immigration agents for exercising their First Amendment rights
49 Imani Cruzen, “St. Paul Public Schools shares federal activity procedures,
cancels events in Minneapolis,” Pioneer Press, January 8, 2026 (available at
https://www.twincities.com/2026/01/08/spps-district-shares-procedures-in-case-of-
federal-activity/).
50 Sen. Richard Blumenthal, “Unchecked Authority: Examining the Trump
Administration’s Extrajudicial Immigration Detentions of U.S. Citizens,”
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8_ICE-Report-revised-
FINAL.pdf
31CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 32 of 80
to observe or protest federal government conduct. Complaint, Tincher v Noem, No. 25-cv-
04669 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025), Dkt. No. 1.
106. According to libertarian think-tank Cato Institute’s analysis of ICE data, as
of June 14, of the more than 200,000 individuals who had been arrested by ICE at that point
in fiscal year 2025, 65% had no criminal convictions and more than 93% had no violent
convictions. Even if Defendants were indeed focusing on the “worst of the worst,” all law
enforcement, including DHS agents, must abide by the Constitution regardless of
investigative targets’ suspected offenses.
VII. IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
107. The culture of fear and unrest caused by Defendants’ actions has resulted in
obvious negative impacts to state and local law enforcement.
Impact on Minneapolis
108. Since December 9, 2025, (a week into Operation Metro Surge) when
Minneapolis began tracking the relevant data, there have been over eighty 911 calls related
to Defendants’ immigration enforcement actions. Each call takes time and resources of
Minneapolis law enforcement to deal with because each call must be assessed and may
need to be investigated.
109. Since December 18, 2025, the Minneapolis Police Department has had one
or more supervisors dedicated to monitoring public safety needs due to Defendants’
immigration enforcement activities during the daytime hours. Since the January 7 fatal
ICE shooting, an additional lieutenant has been assigned during nighttime hours.
32CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 33 of 80
110. Operation Metro Surge has resulted in MPD needing to send officers to
respond to public safety needs caused by twenty-four ICE-related incidents between
December 9, 2025, and January 7, 2026. The incidents requiring officer assistance include
calls from concerned citizens who have seen individuals being kidnapped by unidentified
people or people callers were not sure were federal immigration agents. Incidents also
include ICE abandoning vehicles on the public right of way after detaining the individuals
in the car. By way of example, on January 8, 2026, DHS agents pulled someone out of a
vehicle, in the middle of the road, and departed the scene leaving that vehicle in the middle
of the street. The vehicle, which was abandoned by the agents, was not even placed in park.
Local law enforcement responded after reports the vehicle had rolled and blocked traffic.
111. Officers have also responded to multiple incidents to maintain public safety
where there is a tense protest situation caused by Defendants’ aggressive and reckless
actions.
112. Responding to calls where there is tension between community and federal
immigration enforcement authorities presents many complexities and concerns for local
law enforcement. Officers must respond to calls where tensions are high due. This is
particularly concerning given the reported shortened training period for recently-hired
agents.
113. On January 7, 2026, the Minneapolis Police Department began separately
tracking overtime for public safety responses related to Defendants’ immigration
enforcement activities. To be clear: these hours do not reflect time spent assisting
Defendants in immigration enforcement, but rather, represent hours spent ensuring general
33CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 34 of 80
public safety in the face of Defendants’ surge in forces and reckless and aggressive
immigration enforcement tactics and public reactions to the same. Preliminary accounting
shows that from January 7 to January 9, 2026, Minneapolis Police officers had already
worked more than 3,000 hours of overtime related to Defendants’ activities. The overtime
is paid at 1.5 times the rate of each officer’s regular wage. As of January 9, 2026, the
estimated overtime cost for MPD officers for between January 8 and January 11, 2026, was
more than $2 million.
114. Due to the need to be available to respond to deescalate tensions around
Defendants’ immigration enforcement activities, the Minneapolis Police Department
informed all sworn staff on January 7, 2026, that any scheduled days off would be cancelled
through at least January 11, 2026. The Minneapolis Police Department canceled
approximately 983 scheduled days off. For the same reasons, officers are working longer
shifts, extending past their 8- or 10-hour shifts. These changes have impacted officers’
personal lives and leave them exhausted.
115. In addition, Minneapolis SWAT personnel and Strike Team personnel have
been on paid on-call status since December 19, 2025, prepared to respond to public needs
due to Defendants’ immigration enforcement activities. MPD also placed its Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Team on paid on-call status on January 7, 2026.
116. The surge, and the events surrounding the January 7 fatal ICE shooting, have
taken a toll on the mental health of MPD officers as well. MPD has observed a marked
increase in the utilization of health and wellness resources by officers, with officers
accessing contracted therapeutic services at higher-than-normal rates and reporting
34CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 35 of 80
heightened hypervigilance and fear. For officers present during the 2020 unrest, the
incident has triggered traumatic memories as the officers resume operational duties amid
concerns of potential instability. Officers who joined the department after 2020 report
similar emotional impacts, having experienced prior unrest as community members. While
comprehensive data is not yet available, there is a legitimate concern that the cumulative
psychological impact of responding to Operation Metro Surge may contribute to increased
attrition from the department, as officers confront the destabilizing effects of actions by
Defendants on the community they are sworn to protect.
117. Another impact is that MPD officers responding to public needs caused by
Defendants’ Operation Metro Surge activities prevents those officers from responding to
other 911 calls from the communities MPD serves. On January 7, shortly after 10:00 am,
all priority-2 and priority-3 911 calls were put into “pending” status because MPD officers
were responding to activities following the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis resident by an
ICE agent in Minneapolis. Ultimately, nearly ninety-five MPD officers responded to the
scene on January 7 to deal with the aftermath of the fatal shooting, and while they were
doing so, they were not responding to 911 calls, investigating reports of crimes, or fulfilling
other law enforcement obligations for the benefit of the communities that MPD serves.
Similarly, MPD administration has devoted considerable time to planning around the
impacts of the way Defendants are conducting immigration enforcement in Minneapolis,
and that is time and attention that would otherwise be spent on making Minneapolis a safer
place for people to live, work and visit.
35CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 36 of 80
118. The impacts on the operations of Plaintiff Minneapolis have been far-
reaching. Since the tragic January 7 fatal shooting in Minneapolis, and due to Defendants’
continuing inflammatory tactics, the City has initiated and continues its emergency
preparedness protocols, which means significant additional work for numerous City
departments, from the Emergency Management Department, to Police, Fire, Public Works,
Finance, Communications, the Mayor’s Cabinet, Mayor’s staff and the Mayor, and many
more, taking them all away from pressing City priorities.
Impact on Saint Paul
119. The Saint Paul Police Department (“SPPD”) has responded to multiple
incidents involving Defendants’ agents.
120. On November 25, 2025, SPPD received several calls and responded to the
scene at 609 Rose Avenue E. where DHS agents were conducting an immigration
enforcement operation.
121. On December 21, 2025, SPPD received a call to report shots fired shortly
before 8:30 a.m. SPPD officers responded to the scene. Once on the scene officers learned
that a federal agent was involved in a use of force incident. SPPD completed a state
accident report.
122. On November 18, 2025, SPPD received a call regarding DHS agents present
at Bro-Tex, Inc., a paper manufacturing company in Saint Paul, and related protest activity.
123. On December 11, 2025, SPPD received multiple calls regarding DHS agents
present in the area of Arcade Street and 7th Street E. near Centromex Supermercado and
the Mexican Consulate Building.
36CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 37 of 80
124. On January 11, 2026, SPPD responded to an incident in Saint Paul where a
vehicle crashed into a sign pole on a busy intersection as a result of DHS agents’ actions,
in which the driver was then taken into custody by DHS agents. The vehicle required
towing services after the crash.
125. Each call takes time and resources of SPPD, because each call must be
assessed and may need to be investigated. Responding to calls relating to activities of DHS
agents diverts time and resources from other policing needs.
126. SPPD has also had to devote time and resources to developing guidance and
communicating with residents regarding the differences between DHS agents and SPPD
officers. For example, SPPD issued a public statement reminding residents that “SPPD
officers are required to be in uniform or have clear SPPD markings on them when engaged
in arrest activities. This means if you see a SPPD officer or our markings (i.e. squad, vest,
jacket) in the community, it is not an immigration detail.”
127. Operation Metro Surge has also needlessly flooded Saint Paul with DHS
agents despite Saint Paul’s reduced crime rates.
128. SPPD is a national leader in utilizing community-oriented policing to reduce
crime and solve cases.
129. In 2025, SPPD solved more than 70% of crimes and between 2020 and 2025
the clearance rate (how often police close a case through an arrest or an exceptional reason
such as a suspect dying) for homicides ranged from 89% to 93%.
37CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 38 of 80
130. Between 2022 and 2025 violent crime in Saint Paul decreased significantly.
For example, murder rates decreased 44%, robberies decreased 56%, aggravated assaults
decreased 70%, shots fired decreased 45%.
131. Community trust has been and continues to be of paramount importance to
SPPD’s ability to successfully maintaining low crime rates and high case solve rates.
132. Defendants’ agents practice of concealing their identity, failing to identify
themselves, masking, and wearing inconsistent uniforms with inconsistent identification
creates confusion for Saint Paul residents. On information and belief, residents have had
trouble distinguishing Defendants’ agents from SPPD officers.
133. This confusion leads to decreased community trust in SPPD. When trust
decreases, residents are less likely to call SPPD to report crimes or cooperate in
investigations. This harms SPPD’s ability to effectively protect public safety in Saint Paul.
Impact on State Agencies
134. The State of Minnesota has also already felt impacts on state law enforcement
resources, public trust, and operations. Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety
recognized that the January 7 fatal shooting had created a particularly heightened risk of
escalating tension and public response. Based on that heightened need, the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) has deemed it necessary to direct expenditure of
additional resources to run the State’s Emergency Operations Center (“SEOC”) in the days
that followed. The SEOC serves as a unified command center to ensure that various state
and local agencies can make timely and efficient responses to different types of
emergencies. Operating the SEOC twelve hours a day for five consecutive days has
38CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 39 of 80
required at least seven senior leadership officials, and other state personnel, to redeploy
from their usual duties, and in at least one instance, requiring a contractor be hired at extra
cost (projected to be $65,000) to complete work the redeployed personnel would have
otherwise performed in their ordinary course of duties.
135. DPS has also found it necessary to have State Patrol resources in order to
stay prepared for the perceived risks associated with current DHS activities and public
unrest they have the potential to cause.
136. On January 8, 2026, also due to the very real public safety and public order
concerns created by Defendants’ intentional attempt to sow unrest, Governor Walz issued
an executive order activating the Minnesota State National Guard so that they would be
ready to help law enforcement maintain peace. The Executive Order states that the extent
of costs associated with that activation will be paid from the State’s general fund, pursuant
to Minn. Stat. Section 192.52 (2025).
137. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has
had to divert personnel and fleet vehicles since January 8, 2026. This includes at least one
instance of requested assistance with closing highway ramps in response to public safety
concerns, and other expenditure of personnel and fleet resources for emergency
preparation.
138. Although the full scope of impact is not yet known on either an economic or
operational level, DHS activities have also necessitated diversion or interruption of State
resources in other measurable ways. By way of example, MnDOT’s Fort Snelling location,
known as the “Central Shop” where certain electrical and fabrication services take place,
39CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 40 of 80
has been impacted due to its immediate proximity to DHS’ Whipple Building location. The
Central Shop turned off its HVAC systems due to DHS’ use of chemical irritants against
protestors on January 8, 2026. The overall interruption to the Central Shop left MnDOT
unable to perform work necessary to repair a traffic signal in its usual timeframe, requiring
at least one known intersection to remain on a four-way stop setting for hours longer than
typical (which risks both delays in traffic flow and higher risk of collision.) MnDOT was
also unable to perform scheduled work on snow plow fabrication scheduled for January 8,
2026, at the Central Shop, and has had other heightened personnel demands related to snow
plow relocation and staging.
Other Impacts
139. Defendants’ unlawful tactics also undermine public trust in state and local
law enforcement because individuals cannot distinguish between ICE activities and local
police actions. Deteriorating public trust has consequences: it suppresses the reporting and
prosecuting of serious crimes, especially those that affect the immigrant population. Public
trust in local law enforcement is paramount to effective community policing—including
trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
140. Defendants’ tactics undermine public trust in local law enforcement because
Defendants’ agents are engaging in unnecessarily provocative and at times unlawful
behavior while clothed in garb and using resources that make them look like local law
enforcement. For example, DHS agents have used tactics to resemble local police, like
using vests that say “POLICE,” vehicles with police lights, and yellow police tape.
40CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 41 of 80
141. DHS agents conceal their faces with masks which increases the distrust and
fear provoked by Defendants’ actions. Minnesota law makes it a crime for a person to
conceal their identity by means of a mask in a public place. Minn. Stat. § 609.735. Even if
it were not a violation of state law, the FBI itself has reportedly issued a law enforcement
bulletin to DHS identifying at least five instances in 2025 involving kidnappings, attempted
rapes, and robberies which were effectuated by masked men claiming to be immigration
officers.51 The FBI bulletin reportedly acknowledges the rise in impersonation crimes
linked to the recent increase in ICE enforcement actions is further eroding trust between
communities and police.
142. Because Defendants’ agents are not clearly identifying themselves as federal
agents, community members frequently cannot distinguish between immigration
enforcement activities, possible criminal activities, and local law enforcement officers.
Local law enforcement has been working for years to improve police-community relations,
and the intentional lack of agency identification by DHS agents sets back that progress and
confuses the public.
143. This is particularly problematic as Minnesota recovers from the shared
distress associated with political assassinations which were perpetrated in Minnesota in
June 2025 by a man who posed as a police officer to induce his victims to open their doors.
51 Dell Cameron and Caroline Haskins, FBI Warns of Criminals Posing as
ICE, Urges Agents to ID Themselves, Wired (Nov. 4, 2025)
https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-warns-of-criminals-posing-as-ice-urges-agents-to-id-
themselves/
41CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 42 of 80
144. Hidden identities combined with the apparently unlawful tactics makes it
difficult for community members to know what agency the agents represent, which in turn
erodes hard-earned community trust being rebuilt by local law enforcement day by day—
particularly where the tactics being used by DHS agents are at odds with the carefully
developed, trained, and enforced local policies designed to increase that trust. The impact
is not unnoticed. After the fatal January 7 shooting a crowd in Minneapolis could be heard
chanting, “M-P-D, K-K-K, I-C-E, THEY’RE ALL THE SAME!”52
145. Decreased trust in law enforcement also erodes public safety because the
community is less likely to report criminal activity, and less likely to cooperate as
witnesses. For example, in Hennepin County there has been a marked decrease in
individuals who are cooperating in prosecution of violent crimes.
VIII. COMMANDEERING STATE AND LOCAL PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF LOCAL LAW
TO STAGE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
146. Defendants have also commandeered Plaintiffs’ property during their recent
immigration enforcement efforts.
147. Under Saint Paul’s Charter, for example, public parking lots in or adjacent
to public parks may only be used for “[p]arking of vehicles while utilizing park facilities;”
“[w]alking to and from lawfully parked vehicles without delay;” and “[o]ther uses as
authorized by city permit.” Saint Paul Legislative Code Sec. 170.07 (h)(1)(a)-(c).
52 Eric Roper, ICE tactics threaten to unravel trust with local law enforcement,
Star Tribune (Jan. 11, 2026) https://www.startribune.com/ice-mpd-law-enforcement-
minnesota/601560440
42CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 43 of 80
148. It is “unlawful to use a public parking lot in or adjacent to a public park in
the city for any purpose other than enumerated above.” Id. Sec. 170.07(h)(2).
149. On November 18, 2025, however, DHS agents commandeered the City-
owned parking lot at Newell Park (900 Fairview Avenue N., Saint Paul, MN 55104)
without authorization from the City to stage immigration enforcement actions.
150. On information and belief, this staging was to conduct an enforcement raid
at Bro-Tex Inc., a nearby paper manufacturing company, where Defendants detained 14
individuals.
151. DHS agents positioned at least 30 vehicles in the Newell Park parking lot,
severely limiting the City’s ability to provide parking for recreation in the park.
152. Similarly, on November 25, 2025, DHS agents commandeered the City-
owned parking lot at Arlington Hills Community Center (1200 Payne Avenue, Saint Paul,
MN 55130) without authorization from the City to stage immigration enforcement actions.
153. And on December 13-16, 2025, DHS agents commandeered the City-owned
parking lot at Conway Recreation Center (2090 Conway Street, Saint Paul, MN 55119)
without authorization from the City to stage immigration enforcement actions.
154. On December 23, 2025, Saint Paul sent a Cease-and-Desist letter to
Defendant Easterwood, ordering DHS to “immediately cease and desist from any further
use of these parking lots as well as any other Saint Paul Park parking lot.
”
155. Defendants have not responded to Saint Paul’s letter and continue to
commandeer City property.
43CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 44 of 80
156. On January 3, 2026, Defendants again commandeered the Arlington Hills
Community Center parking lot to, on information and belief, stage for immigration
enforcement action nearby.
157. On January 6, 2026, Defendants commandeered the City-owned Phalen
Recreation Center parking lot to, on information and belief, stage for immigration
enforcement action nearby.
158. DHS agents can be seen on City property surveillance footage unlawfully
loitering in City-owned parking lots. The presence of DHS agents in these parking lots both
practically restricts residents from using the commandeered space for lawful parking, and
on information and belief, quells residents’ desire to recreate in City parks and recreation
centers. Defendants’ continued commandeering of Saint Paul property prevents the City
from offering recreational services to the Saint Paul community and directly violates City
ordinances, which expressly reserve the use of park property for park purposes.
159. Defendants’ commandeering of City property has caused fear and
intimidation amongst City employees.
160. Not only are employees afraid while at work, which affects their ability to do
their jobs effectively, but City employees are afraid to come to work, which has caused
staffing shortages and recreation program cancellations.
161. This disruption to the City’s ability to provide services harms Saint Paul and
its residents.
162. The City has also had to expend resources, such as employee time, to respond
to the emergency situations Defendants are creating on or near City property.
44CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 45 of 80
163. The City has and will suffer irreparable harm, including continued inability
to offer essential City services, and continued unnecessary expenditure of City resources,
if Defendants continue to commandeer City-owned property.
IX. IMPACT ON PLAINTIFFS’ REVENUE STREAMS.
164. Plaintiffs’ operating budgets depend heavily on revenue collected through
state and local taxes, including income tax, property tax, and sales tax. In Minnesota, a
wide range of sales and services are taxable.53 The Twin Cities Metro area accounts for
over half of Minnesota’s total population,54 and over half of the overall jobs in Minnesota.55
That population and employment density corresponds with a higher density of businesses
that bring in tax revenue to the Plaintiffs,56 and the Twin Cities Metro has historically been
53 Taxable Sales, Minnesota Department of Revenue, https://perma.cc/E423-
C5M7
54 Recent Population Growth in the Metro Area, Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development,
https://mn.gov/deed/data/locallook/metro/metro-blog.jsp?id=1045-680261
55 Tim O’Neil, The Same Old Story? Labor Market Trends in the Metro Area,
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (June 2025)
https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/june-2025/metro.jsp
56 See, e.g., Metro Area Industry Statistics, Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (2024)
https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/june-2025/metro.jsp ); Location
Patterns of Restaurants, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (August 2019) https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/review/august-
2019/locations-restaurants.jsp
45CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 46 of 80
the State’s biggest driver of tax revenue.57 Retail and service industries are particularly
important to the Twin Cities Metro revenue stream: retail trade is the third highest
employment sector in the region, and the service industry is the fifth highest.58 Together,
retail sectors and service sectors alone account for nearly 300,000 jobs in the region.59
165. Saint Paul has a local sales tax rate of 1.5%, which businesses collect from
customers and remit to the State of Minnesota, which then distributes the funds to the City
of Saint Paul. Within this 1.5%, 0.5% sales tax funds the Sales Tax Revitalization
(“STAR”) Program for economic development and capital projects. The remaining 1%
sales tax is dedicated to repairs and improvements of streets, bridges, parks, and
recreational facilities. Saint Paul relies on this revenue to support City services.
166. Significant public reporting reflects that Operation Metro Surge has reduced
customer traffic and has, particularly in recent days, caused some local businesses to close
their doors altogether based on the perceived risk of violence by DHS and concerns for
employee and customer safety.60 Small business owners in Minneapolis (particularly along
57 McVan, Twin Cities metro sends money to rural counties, Minnesota
Reformer (Dec. 4, 2023) https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/12/04/twin-cities-metro-
sends-money-to-rural-counties/
58 O’Neil, supra, at https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/june-
2025/metro.jsp
59 Id.
60 See, e.g., How ICE raids are threatening Twin Cities small businesses,
WCCO-CBS (Dec. 16, 2025) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOZsPaHKIU); see
also Dee Depass, ICE crackdown chills sales at immigrant-owned businesses, The Star
(Footnote Continues on Next Page)
46CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 47 of 80
targeted areas of East Lake Street and Cedar Riverside) and in Saint Paul (particularly
along targeted areas of Midway and the East Side) are reporting decreases in customer
traffic and the need to reduce business hours and stock.
167. Customer-facing businesses in Minneapolis are reporting decreases in
revenues of 50-80% because their customer base was not comfortable to patronize the
businesses due to the increased immigration enforcement.
168. Employees of small businesses in the region have also been requesting
reduced hours or did not feel comfortable coming to work altogether at the risk of being
stopped by DHS. This impacts the business’ ability to operate and is an income loss for the
employees.
169. Businesses within Saint Paul have lost revenue, decreased hours, or closed
altogether due to ongoing and increasing immigration enforcement operations.
170. The CEO of a prominent, immigrant-owned restaurant and grocery store
located on the west side of Saint Paul, stated that its newly-reduced hours of operation are
because of increased federal immigration enforcement activity.
Tribune (Dec. 24, 2025) https://www.startribune.com/garbage-somali-protest-spend-st-
joan-of-arc-trinity-church-raids-ice-minneapolis-st/601546734; see also Dustin Nelson,
Twin Cities businesses close in response to ICE presence, Bring Me The News (Jan. 8,
2026) https://www.startribune.com/garbage-somali-protest-spend-st-joan-of-arc-trinity-
church-raids-ice-minneapolis-st/601546734; see also Dustin Nelson, List of Twin Cities
events cancelled and businesses closed in response to ongoing ICE presence, Bring Me
The News (Jan. 10, 2026) https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-lifestyle/list-of-twin-
cities-events-canceled-and-businesses-closed-in-response-to-ongoing-ice-presence)
47CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 48 of 80
171. Store employees at another immigrant-owned grocery store located in Saint
Paul, have noticed a sharp decline in foot traffic since December 5, 2025. A store employee
has stated that only “a quarter of people came out to shop,” demonstrating a dramatic
decrease in business.
172. DHS consistently has a presence of vehicles and agents in the parking lot of
a Karen-owned market in Saint Paul. Saint Paul has a large Karen population, and that
population has reported that having DHS vehicles parked in that specific parking lot
interferes with their ability to feel safe to purchase their culturally specific food which in
turn harms the revenue of those local businesses.
173. The Saint Paul business community has reported that since the initial increase
of DHS agents in the City in November, immigrant-owned businesses in the City have lost
approximately 25-30 percent of revenue.
174. The reason reported for loss of revenue is that customers fear the presence of
DHS agents at area businesses.
175. Some Twin Cities businesses have already said that they risk permanent
closure if the Defendants’ tactics do not end. Because those fears impact business
operations and ultimately sales, property, and income taxes, Plaintiffs’ operating budgets
will suffer.
176. This past week, reports indicate that a number of retail stores, daycares, and
restaurants have announced closures, some of which indicate they will remain closed “until
further notice.” Event venues have cancelled scheduled events, including three shows by a
nationally-recognized comedian at a venue in Minneapolis with an approximately 8,400
48CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 49 of 80
person capacity.61 Immigrant-owned or immigrant-serving businesses that have remained
open have experienced an uptick in harassment and threats.62 These impacts are not limited
to the Twin Cities; businesses in other regions of Minnesota have reported negative
business impacts associated with DHS activities.63
177. Businesses that shutter their doors and customers that choose to stay home
out of fear reduce revenue. These revenue-reducing measures are reasonably foreseeable
steps taken in direct response to the safety concerns Defendants have cultivated. Daycare
and school closures also require Minnesotans to use leave or be absent from work to
supervise their children at home.
178. To be clear: the impacts Plaintiffs describe herein are not limited to
noncitizen immigrants staying home due to fears, or noncitizens being removed and
therefore unable to patronize or work at businesses. Certainly, noncitizen immigrants
61 Dustin Nelson, John Mulaney cancels three night stand in Minneapolis,
Bring Me The News, (Jan. 8, 2026) https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-
lifestyle/john-mulaney-cancels-three-night-stand-in-minneapolis; see also Dustin
Nelson, List of Twin Cities events cancelled and businesses closed in response to ongoing
ICE presence, Bring Me The News (Jan. 10, 2026)
https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-lifestyle/list-of-twin-cities-events-canceled-and-
businesses-closed-in-response-to-ongoing-ice-presence)
62 Carson Hartzog, Harassment toward Somali businesses surges after viral
video, The Star Tribune (Jan. 9, 2026) https://www.startribune.com/harassment-toward-
somali-businesses-surges-after-viral-video/601555420
63 Local immigrant businesses struggling amid ICE activity, ABC 6 News-
KAAL TV, January 9, 2026 (available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oB2Xp_uqig) (describing similar fears and negative
business impacts in Rochester.)
49CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 50 of 80
comprise a small, but important, part of Minnesota’s economic landscape. Data suggests
that noncitizen immigrants without legal status comprise just over 1.5% of Minnesota’s
total population (less than half the national average of 3.3%) and account for 2.2% of
Minnesota’s total labor force.64
179. But Defendants have created such a scope of fear, including for native-born
citizens, naturalized citizens, and legally present immigrants, that those groups also report
staying home, fearing that even carrying their passports and other forms of identification
will be insufficient to protect them from the risk of illegal detainer, arrest, deportation, or
other abusive deprivation of rights without due process.
180. These fears have been bolstered and exacerbated by Defendants. Widely
circulated videos, both within Minnesota and beyond, show individuals pleading with DHS
that they are United States citizens or legally present during chaotic, violent arrests, to no
apparent impact. These fears are also borne out in Defendants’ own apparent policy to
initiate contact with random people within their line of sight based on race and ethnicity.
Moreover, the Trump Administration has also publicly announced a desire to “de-
naturalize” or deport American citizens and meet peaceful protestors with retaliation and
force, further contributing to the strongly held impression that interactions with Defendants
are inherently risky, even for law-abiding people.
64 Cameron Macht, The Role of Undocumented Immigrants in Minnesota's
Workforce, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (March
2025) https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publications/trends/mar-2025/immigrants.jsp; see
also 50 States: Immigrants by Number and Share, Immigration Research Initiative (Jan.
24, 2025) https://immresearch.org/publications/50-states-immigrants-by-number-and-
share/
50CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 51 of 80
181. Other jurisdictions that have recently faced surges of militarized forces
(either by DHS or by federalized National Guard troops) confirm economic harms are a
natural consequence. For example, in November 2025, Chicago business owners reported
“pandemic-era” drops in sales amidst DHS’ “Operation Midway Blitz.”65 In Washington,
D.C., when the Trump Administration federalized National Guard troops with the supposed
purpose of cutting down on violent crime rates, data revealed that out-of-town visitor
spending was not negatively impacted, but resident spending fell dramatically: those who
lived there and were invested in their community were “turned off” from spending in the
region.66
X. DEFENDANTS’ ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS TERMINATION OF SENSITIVE
LOCATIONS POLICY AND SUBSEQUENT, RECURRING, VIOLENT ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY IN SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.
182. Defendants have had a long-standing policy and practice, that dates back to
at least the early 1990s, of immigration authorities avoiding immigration enforcement in
or near certain locations known as “sensitive” or “protected” locations.
65 Joanna Hernandez, In Chicago, Some Businesses Report Pandemic Era
Drop in Sales Amid Immigration Raids, WTTW, (Nov. 6, 2025)
https://news.wttw.com/2025/11/06/chicago-some-businesses-report-pandemic-era-drop-
sales-amid-immigration-raids); see also Nathaniel Meyersohn, Trump’s mass deportation
push is crushing local economies, CNN (Oct. 16,
2025)https://greatcities.uic.edu/2025/10/16/its-killing-business-trumps-mass-deportation-
push-is-crushing-local-economies/
66 Tracy Hadden Loh and Glencora Haskins, Consumer Spending and visitor
demand in the Washington, DC region are dropping, Brookings, (Dec. 12, 2025)
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/consumer-spending-and-visitor-demand-in-the-
washington-dc-region-are-dropping/
51CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 52 of 80
183. With a dozen memoranda from 1993 to 2016, Defendants established a
longstanding policy of avoiding immigration enforcement activities in sensitive locations,
such as schools, churches, hospitals, and courthouses.
184. In 2018, ICE issued Directive No. 11072.1 (the “Directive”), explicitly
authorizing civil immigration arrests inside federal, state, and local courthouses.67
185. Following the change in administrations, DHS issued a Memorandum on
April 27, 2021, revoking the 2018 ICE Directive and replacing it with guidance limiting
the conduct of civil courthouse arrests. Then, on October 27, 2021, DHS issued a
memorandum entitled “Guidance for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas”
that superseded the 2011 memorandum and further strengthened the sensitive locations
policy.68 The 2021 Memorandum prohibits enforcement action, to the fullest extent
possible, “in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or
engagement in essential activities.” The 2021 Memorandum also set forth a more
expansive list of sensitive locations. The list includes but is not limited to: schools, medical
care facilities, places of worship, daycare, and funeral homes.
67 ICE, Directive Number 11072.1: Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions
Inside Courthouses (Jan. 10, 2018) (available at
https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2018/ciEnforcementActions
Courthouses.pdf.)
68 Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Guidelines for Enforcement Actions
in or Near Protected Areas, Department of Homeland Security (Oct. 27, 2021) (available
at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/21_1027_opa_guidelines-
enforcement-actions-in-near-protected-areas.pdf.)
52CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 53 of 80
186. On January 20, 2025, DHS under the Trump Administration revoked the
2021 policy prohibiting immigration arrests in sensitive locations such as schools,
courthouses, and hospitals.
187. As set forth above, and on information and belief, Defendants have targeted
Minnesota residents at these sensitive locations.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
(brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
Infringement on Plaintiffs’ Police Power
188. fully set forth herein.
189. Federal courts possess the power in equity to “grant injunctive relief . . . with
respect to violations of federal law by federal officials.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child
Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 326–27 (2015).
190. The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.” See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).
191. As set forth above, Defendants have sent an unprecedented number of federal
law enforcement officers to the Twin Cities and Defendants’ agents have engaged in
unlawful conduct that harms Plaintiffs’ residents, infringes on Plaintiffs’ police powers,
and violates state sovereignty.
53CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 54 of 80
192. Under our system of federalism, policing and crime control remain one of
the most basic rights reserved to the States and their municipalities. “Indeed, we can think
of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National
Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and
vindication of its victims.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000). “[T]he
power to establish the ordinary regulations of police has been left with the individual States
and cannot be assumed by the national government.” Patterson v. State of Kentucky,
97 U.S. 501, 503 (1878).
193. Local control of law enforcement is also essential to the protection of liberty
and government accountability. “Because the police power is controlled by 50 different
States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’
daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The
Framers thus ensured that powers which ‘in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the
lives, liberties, and properties of the people’ were held by governments more local and
more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v.
Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 536 (2012) (quoting The Federalist No. 45, at 293 (J. Madison)).
194. Defendants’ aggressive and militarized surge interferes with the ability of
state and local law enforcement to address crime and protect residents’ health, welfare and
safety. As set forth above, for example, MPD officers have been forced to work overtime
and expend additional resources to ensure general public safety and maintain order because
of Defendants’ actions.
54CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 55 of 80
195. In addition to infringing upon Plaintiffs’ ability to ensure the safety of their
residents, Defendants’ actions also infringe upon Plaintiffs’ other “vital functions of
modern government,” including “running public schools.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus.,
567 U.S. at 535–36. “[I]t is well established that education is a traditional concern of the
States” and their instrumentalities. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 580-81 (1995)
(Kennedy, J., concurring).
196. The State of Minnesota guarantees a right to public education. J.K. ex rel.
Kaplan v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs. (Special Sch. Dist. No. 1), 849 F. Supp. 2d 865, 871
(D. Minn. 2011). The Minnesota Constitution requires the state to maintain a system of
public schools that is “general and uniform” as well as “thorough and efficient.” Minn.
Const. art. XIII, § 1. And under state law, children between the ages of 7 and 17 are required
to attend school. Minn. Stat. § 120A.22 subd. 5.
197. Defendants’ actions also interfere with this guarantee. As set forth above,
Minneapolis Public Schools cancelled classes for multiple days due to safety concerns after
an ICE agent shot and killed an innocent bystander and then—later that same day—DHS
agents conducted an enforcement action at a Minneapolis high school. Multiple other
schools cancelled classes as well amid overwhelming activity by Defendants’ agents.
Unlawful Coercion and Commandeering
198. In addition to infringing upon the Plaintiffs’ police powers, Defendants’
actions are designed to coerce Plaintiffs into adopting and enforcing President Trump’s
policy priorities.
55CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 56 of 80
199. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States
to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political
subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Printz, 521 U.S.
at 935.
200. Similarly, the federal government “may not simply ‘commandee[r] the
legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a
federal regulatory program.’” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992)
(quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288
(1981)). Such impermissible pressure can occur “whether Congress directly commands a
State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as its
own.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., 567 U.S. at 578.
201. Defendants’ actions force such an impermissible “choice”: use state and local
law enforcement resources to carry out the federal government’s civil immigration
priorities or accept occupation by federal troops. This is particularly true in light of threats
by President Trump that he has “the absolute right” to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy
the military, even though there has been no legal basis to do so. These threats suggest that
the federal government is attempting to create a pretext for military deployment by
provoking civil unrest. Given the need to avoid further escalation to protect public safety
and in light of the threats of military deployment, Defendants’ actions amount to coercion
and commandeering in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Tenth Amendment.
Defendants’ Tenth Amendment violation causes ongoing harm to Plaintiffs.
56CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 57 of 80
202. Additionally, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, Defendants’ unlawful
actions and the manner in which Defendants are enforcing federal immigration law in the
Twin Cities is an unlawful attempt to commandeer state and local law enforcement to assist
federal agents in carrying out federal immigration laws.
203. Defendants’ actions have forced local law enforcement to respond to public
safety incidents caused by Defendants’ conduct to ensure the safety of residents and federal
agents, and to deal with the fallout, including upset family members, outraged witnesses,
children, animals and vehicles left behind, and agents facing crowds of protesters.
204. Similarly, on January 8, 2026, Governor Walz issued an executive order
activating the Minnesota State National Guard—at the State’s expense—to address public
safety risks associated with Defendants’ actions.
205. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that
Defendants’ actions are unconstitutional and violate all Plaintiffs’ rights under the Tenth
Amendment and that Defendants may not prevent the State from exercising sovereign
authority reserved for the States by the Constitution. Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive
relief preventing Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to ensure the health,
education, and safety of their residents with their reserved police powers. Finally, Plaintiffs
are entitled to an injunction preventing Defendants from coercing state and local officials
into carrying out their enforcement efforts.
57CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 58 of 80
COUNT II
Violation of Equal Sovereignty Under the U.S. Constitution
(brought by Plaintiff State of Minnesota)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
206. fully set forth herein.
207. Federal courts possess the power in equity to “grant injunctive relief . . . with
respect to violations of federal law by federal officials.” Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 326–27.
208. “Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a
‘fundamental principle of equal sovereignty’ among States.” Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder,
570 U.S. 529, 544 (2013) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has long recognized that
our nation “was and is a nation of States, equal in power, dignity, and authority,” and that
this “constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the
scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567, 580
(1911).
209. This “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in
assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States” by the federal government. Shelby
Cnty, 570 U.S. at 544 (citation omitted).
210. As set forth above, Defendants have targeted Minnesota for disparate
treatment relative to other states based not on any real or legitimate concern for public
safety or fraud. Rather, Defendants have repeatedly made statements that reflect their true
intent—to punish Minnesota’s elected officials and residents for their perceived political
leanings, to target so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, to create false political narratives of
58CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 59 of 80
lawlessness in Minnesota, and to incite flashpoints between Minnesota residents and
immigration agents.
211. Defendants’ actions in other states further demonstrate the disingenuous
nature of these immigration and law enforcement surges. The Trump Administration’s
actions to mobilize National Guard troops in California, Illinois, and Oregon were enjoined
as unlawful. Defendants pivoted to Minnesota after the Supreme Court blocked the Trump
Administration from deploying the National Guard in Illinois, Trump v. Illinois,
No. 25A443, 2025 WL 3715211 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2025) (mem.). Defendants decided to
single out Minnesota—another politically disfavored “sanctuary” jurisdiction—for their
largest ever immigration operation, even though Minnesota has a fraction of the
undocumented population of other states. “[D]espite the tradition of equal sovereignty,”
Defendants have applied this harsh infringement on state sovereignty “to only [four] states”
and the District of Columbia. Id. at 544.
212. Maintaining the peace and reducing crime are core state and local
governmental functions, and Defendants’ surge in immigration enforcement in Minnesota
has had significant impacts on the ability of state and local law enforcement to perform
their normal duties. As set forth above, officers who would be deployed to crime
prevention and investigation efforts are instead being called upon to respond to incidents
where tensions have been escalated by Defendants’ agents roaming the streets wearing
masks, raiding schools, harassing lawful protestors, and shooting unarmed citizens.
213. Our Constitutional structure does not contemplate or allow the executive
branch of the federal government to punish Minnesota for political differences or
59CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 60 of 80
disfavored policies with unasked-for and unwelcome federal law enforcement “surges.
”
An “extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and
the Federal Government” in the form of a militarized law enforcement response can only
be justified by dire and “unique circumstances,” and must be limited to “areas where
immediate action” is truly necessary. Id. at 546.
214. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiff State of Minnesota is entitled to a
declaration that Defendants’ actions based on Minnesota’s lawful exercise of its core
sovereign powers are unconstitutional and that Defendants may not single out Minnesota
for disparate treatment based on its exercise of core sovereign power reserved for the States
by the Constitution. Plaintiff State of Minnesota is also entitled to injunctive relief
preventing Defendants from implementing or effectuating retaliatory actions and threats or
from engaging in future retaliatory conduct based on Minnesota’s lawful exercise of its
sovereign authority.
COUNT III
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C) – Contrary to Law:
Violation of State Law and City Ordinances
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
215. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
fully set forth herein.
216. On information and belief, Defendants and the federal agents discussed in
this complaint are operating pursuant to a final federal policy, approved by responsible
60CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 61 of 80
federal agency heads with final policymaking authority, of violating state law and city
ordinances.
217. Based on information and belief, Defendants have enacted a policy decision
that represents the consummation of Defendants’ decision-making process to utilize tactics
and conduct that violate DHS policy and state and federal laws based on Defendants’
assertion that they and their agents are absolutely immune from legal consequences.
218. For example, Defendants have intentionally violated Minnesota’s masking
law, which prohibits anyone from concealing their identity by wearing masks in public
places. Minnesota Voters All. v. Walz, 492 F. Supp. 3d 822, 835 (D. Minn. 2020) (citing
Minn. Stat. § 609.735).
219. Wearing a mask in violation of Minnesota law is neither necessary nor proper
to the discharge of Defendants’ agents’ duties.
220. Defendants’ policy and practice of wearing masks so that their agents can
conceal their identities amounts to a final agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(A).
221. Defendants have intentionally violated a state law that prohibits anyone from
displaying a Minnesota license plate other than the license plate assigned to that vehicle.
Minn. Stat. § 168.36, subd. 2. Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety has received
numerous reports from concerned citizens that Defendants’ agents are swapping license
plates between DHS unmarked vehicles.
222. Misusing license plates in violation of Minnesota law is neither necessary
nor proper to the discharge of Defendants’ agents’ duties.
61CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 62 of 80
223. Defendants’ policy and practice of swapping or otherwise misusing license
plates amounts to a final agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(A).
224. As set forth above, Defendants have also intentionally violated Saint Paul
Legislative Code Section 170.07(h).
225. Defendants’ policy and practice of commandeering Saint Paul property to
unlawfully park and stage for federal immigration enforcement activity is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C.
§§ 704, 706(2)(A).
226. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs are suffering harm and will
continue to suffer harm.
227. Plaintiff State of Minnesota has a paramount sovereign interest in enforcing
its own laws and Defendants’ actions are unlawfully interfering with that sovereign
authority. Defendants’ disregard for state law will make it harder for state and local law
enforcement to identify, investigate, and prosecute DHS agents who are acting unlawfully,
including the agents involved in the recent killing of an unarmed woman in Minneapolis.
Defendants’ actions also undermine public trust in law enforcement, which further
undermines public safety efforts by state and local law enforcement officials.
228. As set forth above, Plaintiff Saint Paul is suffering harm from Defendants’
unlawful use of its property.
229. In the absence of an injunction, Defendants will continue to engage in their
unlawful policies and practices against Plaintiffs, as described herein.
62CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 63 of 80
230. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to all
appropriate preliminary relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705; and a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing Defendants from violating state law and city ordinances.
COUNT IV
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C) – Contrary to Law:
Excessive Force
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
231. fully set forth herein.
232. Defendants and their agents discussed in this complaint are operating
pursuant to a final federal policy, approved by responsible federal agency heads with final
policymaking authority, of targeting Plaintiffs’ residents with unjustified violence.
233. As set forth above, Defendants intentionally applied physical force, including
use of projectiles and chemical weapons, on Plaintiffs’ residents. They also restricted
Plaintiffs’ residents’ freedom of movement through a show of authority.
234. The force Defendants used was unreasonable.
235. Federal law provides for the publication of regulations that “prescribe the
categories of officers and employees . . . who may use force (including deadly force) and
the circumstances under which such force may be used.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a).
236. Federal regulation provides that “Non-deadly force may be used only when
a designated immigration officer . . . has reasonable grounds to believe that such force is
necessary.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(a)(ii).
63CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 64 of 80
237. Federal regulation further provides that “A designated immigration officer
shall always use the minimum non-deadly force necessary to accomplish the officer’s
mission and shall escalate to a higher level of non-deadly force only when such higher level
of force is warranted by the actions, apparent intentions, and apparent capabilities of the
suspect, prisoner, or assailant.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(a)(iii).
238. Federal regulation further provides that “Deadly force is any use of force that
is likely to cause death or serious physical injury” and that “Deadly force may be used only
when a designated immigration officer . . . has reasonable grounds to believe that such
force is necessary to protect the designated immigration officer or other persons from the
imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(a)(2)(i)-(ii).
239. Defendants’ policy and practice of using force against Plaintiffs’ residents
fails to take into consideration the risk of harm associated with each weapon used, and
permits uses of force that, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(a): (1) do not further any
legitimate mission assigned to Defendants by law; (2) target the general public; (3) are not
based on reasonable grounds to believe such force is necessary; and/or (4) deploy
gratuitous violence exceeding the minimum necessary to accomplish any legitimate aims.
240. Defendants’ policy and practice of using excessive force against Plaintiffs’
residents is “final agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706(2)(A), and violates the
elementary principle of administrative law that agencies are required to follow their own
regulations, see United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954).
64CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 65 of 80
241. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful policy and practice, both Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs’ residents are suffering and will continue to suffer harm. As set forth, Plaintiffs
have been forced to divert resources and expend additional resources to maintain public
safety and order because of Defendants’ unlawful immigration enforcement tactics.
Plaintiffs are also suffering harm because Defendants’ actions undermine public trust in
state and local law enforcement.
242. In the absence of an injunction, Defendants will continue to engage in their
unlawful policies and practices against Plaintiffs’ residents, described herein.
243. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to all
appropriate preliminary relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705; and a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing Defendants from using unreasonable and unjustifiable force against
Plaintiffs’ residents.
COUNT V
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C) – Contrary to Law:
Warrantless Arrests Without Individualized Assessment of Immigration Status
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
244. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
fully set forth herein.
245. Defendants and the federal agents discussed in this complaint are operating
pursuant to a final federal policy, approved by responsible federal agency heads with final
policymaking authority, of making warrantless arrests in Minnesota without making
individualized determinations of immigration status.
65CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 66 of 80
246. As set forth above, Defendants’ agents are stopping people while they are
walking and driving in Minnesota simply based on perceived race or national origin
because the agents perceive them to be of Latino, Somali, or some other targeted ethnicity.
247. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), an agent may make an immigration arrest
without a warrant only if they have “reason to believe” that (1) the individual “is in the
United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” and (2) the individual
“is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.” See also 8 C.F.R. §
287.8(c)(2)(i), (ii) (same). “Reason to believe” is “considered the equivalent of probable
cause,” Lau v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 445 F.2d 217, 222 (D.C. Cir. 1971),
which “must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized,” Barham
v. Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 573 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366
(2003)).
248. Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless arrests in Minnesota
without making individualized determinations of immigration status as required by 8
U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i) is a final agency action that is “arbitrary,
capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), and violates the Accardi
principle, see Accardi, 347 U.S. at 268.
249. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful policy and practice, both Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs’ residents are suffering and will continue to suffer harm. Plaintiffs are suffering
harm because, as a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs’ residents have stayed
home out of fear that they will be unlawfully targeted and detained on their way to work
66CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 67 of 80
or school. This has led to business and school closures and decreased commercial foot
traffic in the Twin Cities. Plaintiffs are also suffering harm because Defendants’ actions
undermine public trust in state and local law enforcement.
250. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to all
appropriate preliminary relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705; and a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing Defendants from making warrantless arrests in without
individualized determinations of immigration status.
COUNT VI
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C) – Contrary to Law:
Defendants’ Decision to Conduct Border Patrol Enforcement Action as if the Agents
Are Near the Border
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
251. fully set forth herein.
252. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court must “hold unlawful and
set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with the law,” that is “contrary to constitutional right [or] power,” that
is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,”
or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D).
253. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) directs that “[a]ny officer . . . shall have power without
warrant . . . within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States .
. . to board and search for aliens . . . any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle . . .
for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United
67CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 68 of 80
States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). The statute also provides that officers can only “access to
private lands” without a warrant within 25 miles from the border and prohibits warrantless
access to dwellings under any circumstance. Id. The regulations define “reasonable
distance” to mean within 100 air miles from the U.S. border. 8 C.F.R. § 287.1. The
regulations further state that, to expand the 100-mile distance, the chief patrol agent “shall
forward a complete report” to the CBP Commissioner or the Assistant Secretary for ICE
to justify such action and declare such distance to be reasonable. 8 CFR § 287.1(b).
254. Defendants’ policy and practice of conducting border enforcement activity
more than 100 miles from the border, including but not limited to setting up checkpoints,
conducting stops, detentions, and searches, entering private land, and entering residences,
all without the requisite legal authority, is a final agency action that is “arbitrary,
capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C).
255. Minneapolis and Saint Paul are at least 200 miles away from the closest
international border, and that border is with Canada. On information and belief, Plaintiffs
are not aware of any report that has been submitted to justify Defendants’ policy and
practice of border enforcement more than 100 miles of the border.
256. Plaintiffs are suffering harm because of Defendants’ actions.
257. For these reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs
are entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ policy and practice of conducting Border
Patrol enforcement action as if the agents are near the border (including setting up
checkpoints, conducting stops, detentions, and searches, entering private land, and entering
68CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 69 of 80
residences, without the requisite legal basis) is in excess of the agency’s statutory
jurisdiction and is contrary to law and regulation.
258. Plaintiffs are also entitled to vacatur of Defendants’ decision and its
implementation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706; all appropriate preliminary relief under 5
U.S.C. § 705; and a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from
implementing or enforcing the decision.
COUNT VII
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) – Arbitrary and Capricious:
Revocation of 2021 Sensitive Locations Policy
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
259. fully set forth herein.
260. The APA requires that a court “hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be” “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
261. An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has “relied on
factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter
to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
262. Defendants’ revocation of the 2021 Sensitive Locations Policy and its
implementation are final agency actions subject to the APA.
69CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 70 of 80
263. Defendants’ actions violate the APA because they are arbitrary and
capricious, for reasons including: (1) the decision was motivated by animosity and
discriminatory attitude toward immigrants; (2) Defendants failed to offer adequate
explanation for their departure from the long-standing policy to limit enforcement actions
in or near sensitive locations; (3) they failed to grapple with important health, education,
and public safety repercussions of federal immigration enforcement in or near sensitive
locations; (4) they failed to explain prioritizing civil arrests in or near sensitive locations
over those harms and repercussions; (5) they failed to apply reasoned analysis regarding
alternatives to civil arrests in or near sensitive locations; (6) they failed to examine relevant
data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for agency actions; (7) they failed to consider
availability of alternative measures which would achieve the enforcement objective (e.g.,
making the arrest off and a reasonable distance from the premises); (8) they failed to
articulate the importance of the enforcement objective in the context of priorities; (9) they
failed to describe measures which can be taken to minimize the impact on the operation of
the hospital or school or place of worship; and (10) the revocation of the 2021 Sensitive
Location Policy violates the Tenth Amendment.
264. Defendants have not provided a rational basis for the revocation of the 2021
Sensitive Locations Policy.
265. Defendants departed significantly from their normal procedures.
266. Defendants did not take into account Plaintiffs’ reliance interests in
immigration enforcement policy for sensitive locations.
267. Plaintiffs are harmed by the revocation.
70CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 71 of 80
268. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to a
declaration that the revocation of the 2021 Sensitive Locations Policy and the
implementation of that revocation violate the APA because they are arbitrary and
capricious.
269. Plaintiffs are also entitled to vacatur of the revocation of the 2021 Sensitive
Locations Policy and the implementation of that revocation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706; all
appropriate preliminary relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705; and a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing Defendants from implementing or enforcing the revocation of the
2021 Sensitive Locations Policy.
COUNT VIII
Unconstitutional Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
270. fully set forth herein.
271. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the First Amendment prohibits
government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech.”
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87, 90 (2018); see, e.g., Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys.
v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 474 (2022); Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006).
Because a state or municipality “is the voice of its residents,” “a curtailment of its right to
speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those
residents.” Creek v. Vill. of Westhaven, 80 F.3d 186, 193 (7th Cir. 1996).
71CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 72 of 80
272. The State’s voters elected a Democratic governor; indeed, Minnesota’s
voters elected Democrats to all of Minnesota’s statewide offices. Additionally, Plaintiff
Cities are widely considered to be Democratic cities with elected leaders who identify as
Democrats. The State’s Governor and Plaintiff Cities’ elected leaders are vocally opposed
to the Trump Administration’s agenda and have repeatedly criticized the President and his
Administration on behalf of their constituents. This political speech is constitutionally
protected activity.
273. As set forth above, Defendants have been open about the fact that they are
retaliating against Plaintiffs because of these political differences and this protected First
Amendment activity. As set forth above, Defendants DHS and Noem have labeled
Governor Walz and Mayor Frey “sanctuary politicians.” Similarly, after Governor Walz
criticized the fact that it took “50 ICE agents to arrest one guy in a library,” Defendant
Noem responded on social media: “yes, there’s strength in law enforcement numbers to
remove these violent criminals from the communities you refuse to protect.”
274. Other statements by the President reinforce this retaliatory motive. As set
forth above, President Trump’s criticism of Governor Walz intensified after his 2024 Vice
Presidential campaign and President Trump has repeatedly attacked him.
275. Defendants’ actions also “constitute[] a sufficiently adverse action” against
the state and municipalities “to give rise to an actionable First Amendment claim,” Wilson,
595 U.S. at 477. Defendants have “threatened to wield [their] power” against the State for
opposing the President’s agenda. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 194
(2024). Defendants have not just made threats at this point. Defendants have opened
72CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 73 of 80
investigations, ordered funding freezes, and issued large penalties against the State. And,
most importantly in this case, Defendants have sent an unprecedented number of federal
law enforcement officials to the State and into Plaintiff Cities, causing harm and disruption
to residents. And, on the heels of nationally publicized criticism by Governor Walz and
Mayor Frey directed at the Trump Administration over the January 7 fatal ICE shooting,
Defendant Noem announced an even larger deployment of DHS agents into Operation
Metro Surge.
276. These draconian punishments easily meet the standard for an “adverse action
. . . that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the activity.”
Scheffler v. Molin, 743 F.3d 619, 621 (8th Cir. 2014).
277. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that
Defendants’ actions violate the First Amendment and that Defendants may not retaliate
against the Plaintiffs for First Amendment-protected activity. Plaintiffs are also entitled to
injunctive relief preventing Defendants from implementing or effectuating retaliatory
actions and threats or from engaging in future retaliatory conduct based on First
Amendment-protected activity.
COUNT IX
Violation of the First Amendment – Viewpoint Discrimination
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
278. fully set forth herein.
73CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 74 of 80
279. Defendants violate another core First Amendment principle: the prohibition
on viewpoint discrimination. The Supreme Court has long held that “[t]he government
must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion
or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” Rosenberger v. Rector of
Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). While “[a] government official can share her views
freely and criticize particular beliefs,” the First Amendment forbids “us[ing] the power of
the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188.
280. Defendants are targeting Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul because
Defendants disagree with certain viewpoints expressed by and policies adopted by
Plaintiffs’ elected leaders. As set forth above, Defendants have repeatedly criticized and
targeted Plaintiffs because they have adopted so-called “sanctuary” laws and policies.
281. While the President may disagree with some of the viewpoints that he
attributes to Plaintiffs’ elected leaders, the First Amendment does not allow him to punish
Plaintiffs—or their residents—based on those viewpoints.
282. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that
Defendants’ actions targeting Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul based on viewpoints
expressed and adopted by their elected leaders are unconstitutional and that Defendants
may not retaliate against the State and Plaintiff Cities for the viewpoints of their elected
leaders. Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive relief preventing Defendants from
implementing or effectuating the retaliatory actions and threats or from engaging in future
retaliatory conduct based on viewpoint discrimination.
74CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 75 of 80
COUNT XI
Ultra Vires Executive Action in Excess of Constitutional and Statutory Authority
Conferred on the Executive
(Brought by all Plaintiffs)
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as
283. fully set forth herein.
284. The Tenth Amendment provides that “[t]he powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X.
285. The Tenth Amendment protects state sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment
prohibits the Federal Government from intruding on Plaintiffs’ police powers and from
“issu[ing] directives requiring the States to address particular problems” or “command[ing]
the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a
federal regulatory program.” Printz, 521 U.S. at 935.
286. Defendants’ unprecedented and disruptive law enforcement surge has
infringed on Plaintiffs’ police powers. Defendants’ actions also force state and local law
enforcement to either expend resources to carry out the federal government’s civil
immigration priorities or risk further intentional escalation by federal immigration agents
and deployment of federal troops. Defendants’ actions have forced Plaintiffs to respond to
public safety incidents caused by Defendants’ conduct to ensure the safety of residents and
federal agents, and to deal with the fallout from Defendants’ unlawful and disruptive
tactics.
75CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 76 of 80
287. Federal courts possess the power to grant declaratory and injunctive relief
“with respect to violations of federal law by federal officials.” Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 326-
27. Defendants’ actions as described above go beyond mere legal or factual errors and
amount to a clear departure by Defendants from their statutory powers and violate federal
laws and are therefore ultra vires.
288. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ actions violate
the Tenth Amendment. Plaintiffs are further entitled to a preliminary and permanent
injunction preventing Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ ability to ensure the
health, education, and safety of their residents with their reserved police powers and
preventing Defendants from coercing state and local officials into carrying out their
enforcement efforts.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant the following relief:
1. Declare that Defendants’ unprecedented surge of Defendants’ agents in Minnesota
is unconstitutional and unlawful.
2. Hold unlawful and enjoin Defendants’ unprecedented surge of Defendants’ agents
in Minnesota or any other similar action in Minnesota, over the objection of the
Governor of Minnesota and Mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing the
unprecedented surge in Minnesota or any other similar action in Minnesota.
4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing the
unprecedented surge in Minnesota at sensitive locations and in other unlawful ways
that interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to ensure the health, education, and safety of
their residents with their reserved police powers, that coerce state and local officials
into carrying out Defendants’ enforcement efforts, and that violate state law and city
ordinances.
76CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 77 of 80
5. 6. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202, vacate and set aside the agency
actions set forth in Counts III-VII, including the decision to conduct border patrol
enforcement action as if the agents are near the border, and the revocation of the
2021 Sensitive Locations Policy.
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in the unlawful
actions described in this Complaint, specifically prohibiting Defendants, their
officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them from:
a. Arresting or threatening to arrest any person who is not subject to a lawful
immigration arrest unless there is probable cause to believe the individual has
committed a crime;
b. Threatening or using physical force, including brandishing weapons, against
any person who is not subject to a lawful immigration arrest where such threat
or force is not reasonably necessary to stop an immediate and serious threat of
physical harm to a law enforcement officer or another person and there is not
reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person subject to force or
threatened with force has committed a crime;
c. Dispersing individuals engaged in First Amendment-protected activity with
physical force. Defendants may ask an individual engaged in First Amendment-
protected activity to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement, as
long as the instructions are clear and the individual has time to comply and
sufficient opportunity to observe and exercise his or her First Amendment
rights;
d. Pointing firearms at individuals who are not posing an immediate threat of death
or serious bodily injury to another person;
e. Using hands-on physical force such as pulling or shoving to the ground,
tackling, or body slamming any person who is not causing an immediate threat
of physical harm to others, unless objectively necessary and proportional to
effectuate an apprehension and arrest;
f. Using chokeholds, carotid restraints, or any other restraint technique that
applies prolonged pressure to the neck and may restrict blood flow or air
passage against any person, unless such force is objectively necessary to stop
an immediate threat of the person causing serious bodily injury or death to
another person;
g. Seizing or arresting any person who is complying with a lawful and authorized
crowd dispersal order, unless there is specific probable cause to believe that the
77CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 78 of 80
7. 8. h. i. j. k. person has committed a crime for which a custodial arrest is warranted and for
which the Federal Agent has lawful authority to make an arrest;
Concealing his or her identity by means of mask or other disguise in a public
place.
Further requiring Defendants’ agents to:
Wear visible identification of a unique, personally assigned, and recognizable
alphanumeric identifier sequence affixed to their uniforms and conspicuously
displayed in two separate places. The same unique and personally assigned
identifier sequence must remain conspicuously displayed in two separate places
despite changes to the agent’s uniform or tactical gear;
Wear and activate body worn cameras (“BWCs”) when engaged in enforcement
activities unless expressly exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy.
Award the Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
Order such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated: January 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General
State of Minnesota
s/ Liz Kramer
LIZ KRAMER (#0325089)
Solicitor General
PETER J. FARRELL (#0393071)
Deputy Solicitor General
KATHERINE BIES (#0401675)
BRIAN S. CARTER (#0390613)
LINDSEY MIDDLECAMP (#0392589)
JOSEPH RICHIE (#0400615)
Special Counsel
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 600
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2125
(651) 757-1010 (Voice)
(651) 282-5832 (Fax)
78CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 79 of 80
liz.kramer@ag.state.mn.us
peter.farrell@ag.state.mn.us
brian.carter@ag.state.mn.us
katherine.bies@ag.state.mn.us
joseph.richie@ag.state.mn.us
lindsey.middlecamp@ag.state.mn.us
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Minnesota
Dated: January 12, 2026 KRISTYN ANDERSON
City Attorney
/s/ Kristyn Anderson
KRISTYN ANDERSON (0267752)
HEATHER P. ROBERTSON (0390470)
Assistant City Attorney
SARA J. LATHROP (0310232)
Assistant City Attorney
KIRSTEN H. PAGEL (0399114)
Assistant City Attorney
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Tel: 612-673-3000
kristyn.anderson@minneapolismn.gov
sara.lathrop@minneapolismn.gov
heather.robertson@minneapolismn.gov
kirsten.pagel@minneapolismn.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Minneapolis
Dated: January 12, 2026 IRENE KAO
City Attorney
By: /s/ Kelsey McElveen
PORTIA HAMPTON-FLOWERS
(0210869)
Deputy City Attorney
KELSEY MCELVEEN (0396744)
Assistant City Attorney
ALEXANDER HSU (0399275)
Assistant City Attorney
15 W. Kellogg Blvd., #400
Saint Paul, MN 55102
79CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 80 of 80
Tel: 651-266-8710
Portia.flowers@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Kelsey.mcelveen@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Alexander.hsu@ci.stpaul.mn.us
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Saint Paul
|#6273534-v2
80JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CASE 0:26-cv-00190-KMM-DJF Doc. 1-1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(b) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
State of Minnesota, by and through its Attorney General,
Keith Ellison; City of Minneapolis; City of St. Paul
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) Kristi Noem; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; John
Condon; Todd Lyons; Marcos Charles; Rodney Scott; U.S.
Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Rodney Scott; U.S.
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, 445 Minnesota
Street, Suite 600, St. Paul, MN 55101-2125
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country
3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL
400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original
2 Removed from
Proceeding
State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Transfer
8 Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
U.S. Constitution; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06
Brief description of cause:
Challenge to unconstitutional and unlawful agency actions
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY (See instructions):
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
01/12/2026 /s/ Liz Kramer
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
No comments:
Post a Comment