Minnesota Officials and ACLU File Lawsuits Challenging ICE Tactics in Minneapolis Amid Heightened Tensions

MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 26, 2026 — A wave of legal challenges has erupted in Minnesota over the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities, with state officials, local governments and civil rights groups accusing federal agents of overreach, racial profiling and constitutional violations.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, joined by the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 12 against the Department of Homeland Security and several officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. The complaint seeks to halt “Operation Metro Surge,” a December 2025 initiative that deployed thousands of armed and masked DHS agents — including ICE and Border Patrol personnel — to the region. Officials describe the surge as an “unprecedented federal invasion” that has disrupted communities and violated state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

The lawsuit follows a fatal shooting in late 2025 in which an ICE officer killed Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen and Minneapolis resident, during an encounter that state investigators say involved excessive force. Witnesses reported agents wearing masks and refusing to identify themselves, heightening fears of accountability. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the deployment “arbitrary and capricious,” arguing it targets Democratic-leaning areas without justification and endangers residents.

Separately, on Jan. 15, the ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, Covington & Burling LLP, Greene Espel PLLP and Robins Kaplan LLP filed a class-action suit on behalf of three plaintiffs — two Somali men and one Latino man — alleging racial profiling, suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests and First Amendment violations by ICE and CBP agents. The complaint claims agents have unlawfully seized individuals based on appearance, conducted prolonged detentions without probable cause and suppressed speech during encounters.

The suits do not involve a private Minnesota law firm vowing to sue “every single ICE agent” or promising to make Minneapolis “the richest city in America” through litigation. No credible reports confirm such a declaration from any firm. Instead, the legal actions focus on systemic challenges to federal tactics, with plaintiffs seeking injunctions, damages and policy changes.

A federal judge in Minnesota heard arguments on Jan. 14 but declined to issue a temporary restraining order, allowing operations to continue pending further review. The Department of Justice has called the state’s claims “legally frivolous,” arguing ICE agents have authority to conduct consensual encounters, brief detentions and arrests consistent with federal law.

Local leaders, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have criticized the surge for creating fear in immigrant communities and straining city resources. Protests have occurred in Minneapolis and St. Paul, with demonstrators demanding transparency and accountability from federal agents.

The litigation reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration’s immigration agenda and sanctuary-leaning jurisdictions. Similar suits have emerged in Illinois and other states challenging federal deployments. Immigration advocates say the cases test the limits of executive power in enforcement, while administration officials defend the operations as necessary to restore order and remove criminal aliens.

No mass lawsuits targeting individual agents have been announced, and claims of a law firm preparing a “tsunami” of personal suits against every ICE agent remain unverified. The focus remains on institutional challenges rather than individual prosecutions.

The cases are ongoing in federal court, with potential appeals likely. For now, ICE activities continue in the Twin Cities amid heightened scrutiny and community unease. The outcome could influence enforcement strategies nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms.