In America: Operation Metro Surge Overwhelms MN Judges With Cases, Some Show DHS Acting Unlawfully

getty images

In Minneapolis, Operation Metro Surge is underway. This immigration enforcement operation at its peak was using roughly 3,000 ICE agents to identify individuals subject to deportation. DHS claims the operation has led to thousands of arrests including those with violent criminal records. Federal judges in Minnesota are facing an overhaul of emergency immigration cases stemming from Operation Metro Surge. It has created a backlog in Minnesota’s justice system. Judges are finding in some of the cases due-process violations, defiance of legal procedures, and legally flagrant conduct from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Operation Metro Surge

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security have been targeting illegal immigrants nationwide. The DHS launched Operation Metro Surge back in December with the intent to use ICE and the Customs and Border Protection to identify and detain individuals with deportation orders. In the last two months, DHS has reported thousands of arrests within the Twin Cities involving illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories including violent or sexual offenses, gang-related activity and involvement, financial crimes, and more.  

Controversy surrounding immigration enforcement has risen due to widespread media portrayal of aggressive enforcement tactics where individuals are being hurt or killed. In Minneapolis, Operation Metro Surge has been criticized for its impact on the community and blamed for raising tensions with protestors supporting immigrant rights and opposing aggressive immigration enforcement.   

ICE’s Impact On MN Court System

Minnesota’s federal bench, including seven active and ten semi-retired judges, is flooded with emergency habeas corpus petitions from immigrants detained in Minnesota. Petitioners allege they were arrested without warrants, denied bond hearings, and/or transferred outside the state to prevent the Minnesota court system from intervening with ICE operations. The petitions require same-day or next-day hearings forcing judges to work beyond their regular schedules. This surge in cases has disrupted the routine docket within the court system as habeas petitions take priority over other cases. This means civil trials, criminal sentencing, and other administrative matters have been delayed significantly to later dates. U.S. District judges out-of-state are helping Minnesota with the overwhelmed docket. 

The Trump Administration’s Immigration Policy has put an emphasis on detaining and deporting individuals who have entered the country illegally or irregularly. President Trump campaigned his intent to deport illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds negatively contributing to the United States. However, ICE detention data statistics show 48% of detained immigrants do not have a criminal record while the remaining 52% are convicted criminals or have charges pending. ICE’s mass detention policy uses detention centers to hold large numbers of undocumented immigrants. Due to the significant increase in detainees, undocumented immigrants are being held in detention centers for longer periods and are not guaranteed bond hearings or case-by-case assessments. 

Federal Judges In Several Cases Say Trump's ICE & DHS Have Acted Unlawfully

Judges in Minnesota have rejected the mass-detention policy court-ordering releases of many detainees. They have found in thousands of cases stemming from Operation Metro Surge that ICE and DHS committed due-process violations defying the Constitution. 

Minnesota’s Chief Federal Judge Patrick Schiltz is furious with ICE and DHS’s unlawful conduct. Schiltz publicly stated “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” 

Courts have ruled under provisions of the “Immigration and Nationality Act” that it is lawful in many circumstances to arrest immigrants without a warrant if immigration enforcement has reason to believe the person is removable (the individual has entered and remained in the U.S. illegally) and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. In Minnesota, judges have found within these cases that ICE have not articulated any factual basis for removability or flight risk. 

It is illegal to arrest undocumented immigrants without individualized articulable suspicion for the immigrant to be removable from the United States. Repeatedly the courts have held ICE cannot arrest someone purely on the basis of appearance, the language they speak, their ethnicity, or where they are. ICE must have probable cause or reason to believe the individual is removable based on individualized facts regarding the person. 

Immigration detention still requires due process. Under 8 U.S. Code 1226, there are two categories of immigration detention: mandatory detention and discretionary detention. Mandatory detention means an individual will be held without a bond hearing. This form of detention is commonly imposed on aliens with specific criminal convictions. Discretionary detention entitles most noncitizens to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The Supreme Court has ruled that detained immigrants be held under indefinite detention in certain circumstances. Recent changes to immigration policy has reduced detained immigrants’ eligibility for bond hearings. ICE has authority to grant releases through case-by-case assessments. Minnesota judges have seen within these cases people entitled to bond hearings not getting them, ICE misclassifying individuals as mandatory detainees without legal basis, and ICE delaying/denying hearings beyond what due process allows.  

It is illegal to transfer detained immigrants out of state to evade judicial review. Transfers themselves are legal and routine. But courts have held that the Government cannot transfer a detainee to prevent them from accessing the courts, it cannot move someone after a judge has taken jurisdiction over their case, and it cannot use transfers to over power habeas petitions or defeat a court’s jurisdiction.