MINNEAPOLIS—A federal judge in Minnesota will hear key arguments regarding an immigration crackdown that has sparked outcry after two fatal shootings involving federal officers. Following the tragic shooting of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, and another incident resulting in the death of Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer, Minnesota's state and city governments have initiated legal action against the Department of Homeland Security.
This lawsuit, filed just days after the shootings, demands a suspension of the controversial Operation Metro Surge initiated during the Trump administration. Advocates, including Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison, are focusing on restoring the enforcement frameworks that existed prior to this operation, which they regard as an unprecedented violation of constitutional protections.
At its core, the lawsuit aims to limit the number of federal officers operating in Minnesota while ensuring their enforcement activities adhere to a list of specific limitations. Ellison and local officials argue that the surge represents a blatant abuse of federal authority, stating, 'No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.'
The federal government has termed the lawsuit 'legally frivolous,' asserting that it attempts to grant state officials veto power over federal law enforcement. Justice Department attorneys are pushing for the court to reject the request to halt federal operations or at least put a stay on any immediate orders pending appeal.
The outcome of the federal court hearing may hold implications not only for Minnesota but also for other states facing similar federal immigration crackdowns, with attorneys generals from 19 states backing Minnesota's position in a friend-of-the-court brief. According to them, unchecked governmental power could lead to continued unlawful practices across the country.
The ruling may not be immediate, but stakeholders are awaiting a decisive interpretation of federal versus state authority, particularly in relation to law enforcement and immigration policy. Ellison has also taken steps to preserve evidence concerning the recent shootings, indicating ongoing concerns regarding federal actions during protests and public safety.
This lawsuit, filed just days after the shootings, demands a suspension of the controversial Operation Metro Surge initiated during the Trump administration. Advocates, including Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison, are focusing on restoring the enforcement frameworks that existed prior to this operation, which they regard as an unprecedented violation of constitutional protections.
At its core, the lawsuit aims to limit the number of federal officers operating in Minnesota while ensuring their enforcement activities adhere to a list of specific limitations. Ellison and local officials argue that the surge represents a blatant abuse of federal authority, stating, 'No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.'
The federal government has termed the lawsuit 'legally frivolous,' asserting that it attempts to grant state officials veto power over federal law enforcement. Justice Department attorneys are pushing for the court to reject the request to halt federal operations or at least put a stay on any immediate orders pending appeal.
The outcome of the federal court hearing may hold implications not only for Minnesota but also for other states facing similar federal immigration crackdowns, with attorneys generals from 19 states backing Minnesota's position in a friend-of-the-court brief. According to them, unchecked governmental power could lead to continued unlawful practices across the country.
The ruling may not be immediate, but stakeholders are awaiting a decisive interpretation of federal versus state authority, particularly in relation to law enforcement and immigration policy. Ellison has also taken steps to preserve evidence concerning the recent shootings, indicating ongoing concerns regarding federal actions during protests and public safety.
