‘No Precedent’: Fed Judge Denies Minnesota Injunction To Stop ICE Surge | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Drew Berkemeyer.

    A federal judge on Saturday denied Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's request for an injunction to halt the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, finding the case did not justify extraordinary judicial intervention.

    U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez, a Biden appointee, wrote that Ellison and lawyers for St. Paul and Minneapolis had asked the court to extend existing precedent to the point of novelty, noting in her order that "none of the cases on which they rely have even come close."

    The lawsuit, filed in early January by Ellison alongside the Twin Cities, sought a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to halt "Operation Metro Surge," an extensive federal immigration enforcement action in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Minnesota officials argued that the deployment violates constitutional protections, including the 10th Amendment's limits on federal power.

    She later noted that a separate injunction she had issued in a different case restricting certain ICE tactics was recently lifted by an appeals court, saying that if that order was too broad, "then the one at issue here - halting the entire operation - certainly would."

    Menendez also wrote that she was "particularly reluctant to take a side in the debate about the purpose behind Operation Metro Surge," and acknowledged that it was difficult for the court to determine "at what point Defendants' alleged unlawful actions ... become so problematic that they amount to unconstitutional coercion and an infringement on Minnesota's state sovereignty." She added that there is "no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions."

    The judge also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of harms decisively favored issuing an injunction, a key legal standard in these cases. "Ultimately, the Court finds that the balance of harms does not decisively favor an injunction," Menendez wrote.

    Prior to the decision, the federal government pushed back against the state's lawsuit, dismissing the legal arguments as lacking merit. In court filings, the government called Minnesota's claims an "absurdity" and "legally frivolous," arguing that the 10th Amendment does not give states a means to block federal enforcement of federal law.

    After the decision was released, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X, "Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota."


    Ellison's lawsuit came amid ongoing controversy in Minnesota over the enforcement operation, which has drawn protests and national attention. The injunction request was filed before the death of Alex Pretti.

    Menendez's ruling does not make a final determination on the underlying constitutional claims; it only denies the immediate injunctive relief sought by the state and cities while the broader lawsuit continues through the federal court system.

    The denial underscores the high legal bar states face when attempting to block federal law enforcement, and ensures that at least for the moment, the fight over immigration enforcement in Minnesota will continue on the ground rather than in the courtroom.

poll#201

Considering what real news is available for all to witness, and in great specificity, should one pursue what is true outside of the channeled realm of the corrupt corporate /legacy media, and: Is Institutionalized Corruption real, and is it a hindrance to sustaining our Constitutional Republic now, and for future generations of American citizens?

  Yes

  No

  Not sure

508 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

poll#221

There is a revelation within the Democratic Socialists, which is creating a newfound discovery that masks are bad or wrong for society, and should not be worn by certain groups; currently the rancor is to unmask ICE agents: What is your opinion on the wearing of masks?

  Yes, ICE agents should wear masks if it keeps them safe from the threat of doxing, and greater public violence against their families by intolerant Leftists raging against the defenseless.

  No, ICE agents must be forced to reveal their true selves; however, wearing masks while rioting and looting is within the bounds of the Leftist dictum.

  I wear masks often at Halloween.

115 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

poll#218

Now that President Trump is picking his cabinet and immediate staff to insulate him from the poor judgement of the Bureaucratic Class, while moving quickly to transition this Constitutional Republic unto a wise and sustainable direction: What is your immediate impression as to how our nation will prosper?

  We are headed toward a Golden Age in America's self-governed society.

  This will all wind up in a clustered mess since Trump is a Fascist, and thought to be the second coming of Adolf Hitler by our best journalists.

  This is a time where critical days lay ahead, where only wise and responsible decisions must be made to sustain US.

  I generally do not pay attention, but expect only the best to occur ... and that is what I always expect.

163 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?