Judge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing Whether State Is Being Illegally Punished | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoMerchSearchSearchSign InSign InDell CameronSecurityJan 26, 2026 5:39 PMJudge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing Whether State Is Being Illegally PunishedA federal judge ordered a new briefing due Wednesday on whether DHS is using armed raids to pressure Minnesota into abandoning its sanctuary policies, leaving ICE operations in place for now.Photograph: Ben Brewer/Getty ImagesSave StorySave this storySave StorySave this storyA federal judge on Monday declined to immediately curb the federal operation that has put armed agents on the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul, but ordered the government to file a new briefing by Wednesday evening answering a central claim in the case: that the surge is being used to punish Minnesota and force state and local authorities to change their laws and cooperate with the targeting of local immigrants.The order leaves the operation’s scope and tactics in place for now, but requires the federal government to explain whether it is using armed raids and street arrests to pressure Minnesota into detaining immigrants and handing over sensitive state data.In a written order, Judge Kate Menendez directed the federal government to directly address whether Operation Metro Surge was designed to “punish Plaintiffs for adopting sanctuary laws and policies.” The court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to respond to allegations that the surge was a tool to coerce the state to change laws, share public assistance data and other state records, divert local resources to assist immigration arrests, and hold people in custody “for longer periods of time than otherwise allowed.”The judge said the additional briefing was required because the coercion claim became clearer only after recent developments, including public statements by senior administration officials made after Minnesota sought emergency relief.A key factor in the court’s analysis is a January 24 letter from US attorney general Pam Bondi to Minnesota governor Tim Walz, which Minnesota described as an “extortion.” In it, Bondi accuses Minnesota officials of “lawlessness” and demands what she calls “simple steps” to “restore the rule of law,” including turning over state welfare and voter data, repealing sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate with federal immigration arrests. She warned that the federal operations would continue if the state did not comply.Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The case—State of Minnesota v. Noem—was brought by Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison, Minneapolis, and St. Paul against Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and senior DHS, ICE, CBP, and Border Patrol officials.At the hearing on Monday, lawyers for Minnesota and the cities argued that the federal deployment had crossed from investigating immigration violations into sustained street policing and “illegal” behavior, producing an ongoing public-safety crisis that warranted immediate limits. They pointed to fatal shootings by federal agents, the use of chemical agents in crowded areas, schools canceling classes or shifting online, parents keeping children home, and residents avoiding streets, stores and public buildings out of fear.The plaintiffs argued that these were not injuries of the past but ongoing harms, and that waiting to litigate individual cases would leave the cities to absorb the violence, fear and disruption of an operation they do not control. The legal fight, they said, turns on whether the Constitution allows a federal operation to impose those costs and risks on state and local governments, and whether the conduct described in the record was isolated or so widespread that only immediate, court-ordered limits could restore basic order.In filings, the plaintiffs describe an operation that DHS has publicly promoted as the “largest” of its kind in Minnesota, with the department claiming it deployed more than 2,000 agents into the Twin Cities; more than the combined number of sworn officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They argue the federal presence turned into day-to-day patrols in otherwise sleepy neighborhoods, with agents pulling over residents at random, detaining them on sidewalks, and making sweeping detentions without suspecting criminal conduct.The filings also lead with the gravest fact about the operation: US citizens who were not its targets have now been shot and killed.Judge Menendez pressed repeatedly on how far a federal court could go, questioning what relief the law would allow and how much authority she had to intervene in a federal operation of this scale. She said she was focused on the legal claims before her, not on policing the entire surge, and asked whether any remedy would have to be tied to specific unlawful acts rather than the operation as a whole.Throughout the exchange, the judge kept returning to whether the state was being unlawfully coerced rather than simply overruled by federal priorities. She asked at what point the federal government’s actions leave state and local officials with no real ability to refuse cooperation, object, or opt out. She also questioned whether sending thousands of armed agents into one state could cross a constitutional line, forcing cities and counties to reroute police and emergency crews, secure and manage federal crime scenes, or handle arrests and medical responses they didn’t plan for.Got a Tip?Are you a current or former government employee who wants to talk about US immigration enforcement? We'd like to hear from you. Using a nonwork phone or computer, contact the reporter securely on Signal at dell.3030.The cities argued that the scale of the deployment itself had forced them into crisis mode—diverting police, fire, and emergency resources, canceling days off, and spending millions to stabilize neighborhoods shaken by armed federal activity. Lawyers for the federal government pushed back, warning that the plaintiffs were effectively asking for a state veto over federal enforcement and urging the court not to step in without hearing from witnesses and seeing more evidence. Intervening now, they argued, would trigger an immediate appeal.On January 7, a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident, during a sweep by armed officers in south Minneapolis that had nothing to do with her immigration status. Federal officials and the White House called the shooting “defensive,” alleging she struck an agent with her vehicle. Independent analysis of video evidence shows her vehicle never hit any agents, and witnesses and journalists have contested the official account; an autopsy found she was shot three times, including a fatal wound to the head.On January 16, a US district judge moved to restrict federal agents’ ability to detain and use crowd-control force against peaceful community members monitoring federal raids. But on January 21, a higher federal court stayed the order pending appeal.Days later, federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who worked at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and was also a US citizen, during another operation in the city.Border Patrol officials, backed by the White House, alleged Pretti posed a lethal threat and “violently resisted,” a narrative echoed by President Donald Trump, who had labeled Pretti “the gunman.” The government’s claims were immediately falsified by a slew of bystander footage shot from multiple angles, showing Pretti holding a phone and cooperating with commands as agents closed in, before he was pepper sprayed at close range, forced to the pavement, pinned, and shot from behind.Within hours, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency motion asking the federal appeals court to lift the stay that had allowed ICE to resume detentions and use of force against Minnesotans peacefully monitoring federal operations. The court has not yet ruled, leaving the restrictions off for now.Minnesota’s statewide investigators say federal authorities absconded with evidence from the scene of Pretti’s killing, including “apparently seized cellphones,” while blocking state officers from entering the area; actions they warn may have compromised critical evidence. In the aftermath, Minnesota authorities took the highly unusual step of seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the federal government from altering or destroying evidence—a request that a federal judge, in an equally unusual move, granted within hours.Minnesotans have personally described violent encounters with federal agents in numerous sworn declarations—being thrown to the ground, handcuffed, and detained for mere acts of observing from sidewalks or asking officers questions. Separate from state authorities, a group of individual Minnesotans have brought their own lawsuit against Noem and DHS. The plaintiffs include retirees, health workers, attorneys, and community volunteers.They describe assaults that left them injured and shaken, and fearful of moving freely in their own neighborhoods, despite having committed no crime.In one account, a longtime neighborhood resident says she approached what appeared to be a group of federal agents in Minneapolis one morning, standing on a sidewalk about 6 feet away. She says the agents wore bulletproof vests, several had face coverings, and displayed no names or badges. When she asked whether they worked for ICE, an agent shouted, “Take her down!” she says, before rushing her and pulling her face-down into the snow as she screamed for help.The woman, who is 55 and runs a consulting business with her husband, says she was taken through the garage entrance of a building where officers searched her and stripped her of her belongings. They shackled her legs, she says, and cut off her boot laces, along with her bra and the wedding ring on her finger. According to the filing, she was released hours later, without paperwork, swollen and bruised.“It was the original wedding band from my marriage 32 years ago,” she wrote. “It was a treasured symbol of my relationship with my husband.”You Might Also LikeIn your inbox: Maxwell Zeff's dispatch from the heart of AIThe best EVs coming in 2026Big Story: Your first humanoid coworker will be ChineseWhat to do if ICE invades your neighborhoodSpecial edition: You’re already living in the Chinese centuryDell Cameron is an investigative reporter from Texas covering privacy and national security. He's the recipient of multiple Society of Professional Journalists awards and is co-recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award for Investigative Reporting. Previously, he was a senior reporter at Gizmodo and a staff writer for the Daily ... Read MoreSenior Reporter, National SecurityTopicsCrimelawsuitslawsimmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementDepartment of Homeland SecurityDonald TrumppoliticsMinnesotanational securityRead More10% Off Dell Coupon Codes for January 2026Get 10% off with verified Dell promo code, plus today’s coupons for up to $600 off laptops, Alienware monitors, and all things tech.20% Off TurboTax Service Codes for January 2026Tax season doesn’t have to be stressful. Save up to 20% on federal tax filings, 10% off Full Service, and more with exclusive TurboTax discount codes on WIRED.Top Newegg Promo Codes and Coupons for January 2026Enjoy up to 10% off your entire order with today’s Newegg discount code and save with the latest deals for gaming PCs, laptops, and computer parts.Judge Delays Minnesota ICE Decision While Weighing Whether State Is Being Illegally PunishedA federal judge ordered a new briefing due Wednesday on whether DHS is using armed raids to pressure Minnesota into abandoning its sanctuary policies, leaving ICE operations in place for now.Palantir Defends Work With ICE to Staff Following Killing of Alex Pretti“In my opinion ICE are the bad guys. I am not proud that the company I enjoy so much working for is part of this,” one worker wrote on Slack.TikTok Data Center Outage Triggers Trust Crisis for New US OwnersThe technical failure coincided with TikTok’s ownership transition, leading users to question whether videos criticizing ICE raids in Minnesota were being intentionally censored.Redditors Are Mounting a Resistance Against ICEA user from r/Minneapolis was among the first to share footage of federal agents shooting Alex Pretti. Following his death, subreddits about football, cats, and embroidery have all rallied against ICE.This Wireless Mic Kit Is $70 OffSave on a full DJI Mic 3 bundle, or pick and choose to build your own portable recording setup.Intel’s Panther Lake Chip Is Its Biggest Win in YearsI’ve tested two new laptops powered by Panther Lake—pitting them head-to-head against laptops with Apple Silicon—and Intel has finally scored a much-needed win with the Core Ultra Series 3.After 5 Years, Apple Finally Upgrades the AirTagThe second-generation AirTag features Apple’s newer Ultra Wideband chip and has a louder speaker and better range.We Strapped on Exoskeletons and Raced. There’s One Clear WinnerWIRED put the latest consumer exoskeletons from Dnsys and Hypershell in a head-to-head test on a pro athletic track. On your marks …Deepfake ‘Nudify’ Technology Is Getting Darker—and More DangerousSexual deepfakes continue to get more sophisticated, capable, easy to access, and perilous for millions of women who are abused with the technology.WIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.SubscribeNewslettersTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

The federal judge, Kate Menendez, has issued a temporary delay in the ongoing legal battle between the state of Minnesota and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically regarding ICE’s operations in the Twin Cities. This postponement stems from a request for a new briefing due by Wednesday evening, requiring DHS to directly address the core allegation: whether the agency is employing armed raids and street arrests as a coercive tactic to force Minnesota into abandoning its sanctuary policies. The judge’s decision effectively maintains the current operational scope of the “Metro Surge” operation, but necessitates a detailed response from DHS concerning the claims of unlawful pressure and coercion.

The legal challenge, initiated by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, centers on the perceived punitive nature of DHS’s actions. The plaintiffs argue that the deployment of over 2,000 federal agents, exceeding the combined sworn officer numbers of the Twin Cities, constitutes an illegitimate attempt to dictate state policy through intimidation. Furthermore, the legal arguments highlight specific concerns, including the alleged misuse of state data – such as welfare and voter information – the potential diversion of local resources to assist ICE, and the extended detention periods imposed on immigrants. The judge’s order directly questions whether these actions represent a deliberate attempt to force compliance from Minnesota.

A key element fueling this legal fight is the Attorney General’s description of the federal operation as an “extortion,” referencing a January 24 letter to Governor Tim Walz. This letter demanded the state’s surrender of state data, repeal of sanctuary policies, and directing local officials to cooperate with ICE arrests. The letter warned that continued resistance would result in the sustained federal operation. This framing established the core dispute: whether DHS’s actions were a legitimate enforcement effort or an attempt to manipulate state governance.

The timeline of events is critical. The judge’s request for the briefing is directly linked to recent developments, specifically the senior administration officials’ public statements following Minnesota’s initial legal challenge. The timing indicates the court’s concern that the claims of coercion were becoming increasingly clear as the operation progressed.

The legal proceedings are further complicated by the reported violent encounters between federal agents and residents. The shooting of Renee Nicole Good on January 24th, and subsequently, Alex Pretti on January 16th, are central to the arguments. Each case raises fundamental questions regarding the appropriate conduct of federal law enforcement, particularly when operating within a civilian population. The legal team contends that the use of force, the alleged use of chemical agents, and the disruption to daily life—including canceled schools and residents avoiding public spaces—constitute ongoing harms that require immediate intervention.

The ongoing litigation implicates broader constitutional concerns regarding the balance of power between the federal government and state governments. The legal arguments touch upon the potential for federal actions to unduly influence state policy decisions and to impose significant burdens on local communities. The judge’s focus on whether the state is being unlawfully coerced rather than merely overruled by federal priorities underscores the central tension at the heart of the dispute.

Furthermore, the legal team is keen on preserving evidence related to the shooting of Pretti, alleging that federal agents absconded with evidence. This concern—along with a successful emergency injunction to prevent alteration or destruction of evidence—highlights the need for a meticulous accounting of events and reinforces the importance of safeguarding due process.

The legal team has presented a compelling case by presenting compelling evidence of ongoing harm in the form of violent encounters with federal agents. The plaintiffs are also pursuing a separate lawsuit, also against Noem and DHS. These suits reveal a pattern of what they allege constitutes aggravated battery and excessive use of force.

The judge’s decision to delay the proceedings and necessitate a detailed briefing from DHS highlights the sensitive legal and constitutional issues at stake. It demonstrates a commitment to thoroughly examining the actions of the federal government and to safeguarding the rights and liberties of the residents of Minnesota. The case will continue to play out in the courts, with the outcome potentially having significant implications for immigration enforcement policies and the relationship between the federal government and state governments.