A Biden-appointed federal judge just delivered a stinging defeat to Minnesota Democrats desperate to halt President Trump’s massive immigration enforcement operation, proving that even liberal jurists can’t ignore the rule of law when states overstep their constitutional boundaries.
Story Snapshot
- U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, a Biden appointee, rejected Minnesota’s attempt to stop Operation Metro Surge, allowing 3,000 federal immigration officers to continue enforcement in the Twin Cities
- Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s lawsuit alleged civil rights abuses and unconstitutional federal overreach, but the judge found no legal precedent for blocking federal law enforcement operations
- The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had already reversed Judge Menendez’s earlier limited injunction, signaling judicial reluctance to interfere with executive immigration enforcement
- The ruling strengthens federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions and deals a political embarrassment to Democratic officials who claimed the operation violated state sovereignty
Biden Judge Upholds Trump Immigration Surge Despite Democratic Opposition
U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez issued a 30-page ruling on January 31, 2026, denying Minnesota’s request for a preliminary injunction against Operation Metro Surge. The Biden-appointed judge determined that state officials, Minneapolis, and St. Paul failed to demonstrate their claims of unconstitutional federal overreach would likely succeed. Menendez explicitly stated there exists “no precedent for a court to micromanage such decisions” regarding federal resource allocation for immigration enforcement. The ruling allows approximately 3,000 DHS and ICE officers to continue operations unimpeded, a force triple the size of the combined Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments.
State Sovereignty Claims Collapse Under Judicial Scrutiny
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed the lawsuit in early January on behalf of the state and both major Twin Cities municipalities, arguing Operation Metro Surge violated the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state police powers. Ellison characterized the federal deployment as punitive retaliation for Minnesota’s refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Judge Menendez rejected these arguments, noting the plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence that the operation constituted unlawful coercion or commandeering of state resources. This reasoning aligns with constitutional principles that recognize federal supremacy in immigration enforcement, a core area of national sovereignty that states cannot obstruct through selective non-cooperation.
Appellate Court Reversal Foreshadowed Final Outcome
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously overturned Judge Menendez’s narrower injunction that restricted how DHS agents could interact with protesters near the Whipple Federal Building, where tear gas deployments occurred on January 12. This appellate reversal signaled higher courts’ unwillingness to constrain federal enforcement operations based on state complaints. The circuit court’s conservative-leaning composition reinforced judicial restraint principles, recognizing that federal executives possess broad discretion in deploying resources to enforce immigration law. Menendez’s final ruling acknowledged this appellate guidance, further undermining Minnesota’s attempt to invoke the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder precedent, which she deemed inapplicable to federal law enforcement allocation decisions.
Operation Sets Precedent Against Sanctuary Obstruction
The ruling establishes significant precedent for federal authority to conduct enforcement surges in jurisdictions that refuse cooperation with immigration laws. Operation Metro Surge represents the Trump administration’s commitment to restoring immigration law enforcement despite local resistance. The decision discourages other sanctuary states from filing similar lawsuits claiming federal operations violate state sovereignty. For conservatives frustrated with years of sanctuary policies undermining border security, this outcome vindicates the principle that states cannot nullify federal immigration law through non-cooperation. The operation’s continuation ensures that communities harboring illegal immigrants will face meaningful consequences, restoring accountability to immigration enforcement.
The political implications extend beyond legal precedent. Keith Ellison and Democratic Twin Cities officials suffered an embarrassing defeat from a judge appointed by their own party’s president. This outcome exposes the weakness of their legal arguments and demonstrates that federal immigration enforcement authority remains constitutionally sound regardless of political preferences. The surge continues unabated, with no immediate appeals noted following the January 31 ruling. Minnesota’s failed attempt to characterize legitimate federal enforcement as a constitutional “invasion” reveals the desperation of officials more committed to protecting illegal immigrants than upholding the rule of law and public safety their constituents deserve.
Sources:
Judge denies request to halt ICE operations in Minnesota – KSTP
Federal judge denies Minnesota bid to halt immigration surge – UPI
