Court Rules State Failed To Meet Legal Burden To Halt Immigration Enforcement Operation As Constitutional Challenge Proceeds

Sunday, February 1, 2026, 7:30 A.M. ET. 4 Minute Read, By Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor: Englebrook Independent News,

MINNEAPOLIS, MN.- A federal judge on Saturday denied a request by the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to immediately halt “Operation Metro Surge,” the Trump administration’s large-scale immigration enforcement expansion in the Twin Cities, allowing the operation to continue while the underlying lawsuit moves forward.

     In a written order dated January 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding the state failed to meet the high legal threshold required to pause a federal law-enforcement initiative statewide.

The State Sought Emergency Relief;

     The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, joined by the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and federal agencies involved in the operation.

     At the center of the emergency request was the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim that Operation Metro Surge violates the Tenth Amendment by unlawfully intruding on state sovereignty. The complaint alleges the federal government is coercing or retaliating against state and local governments over so-called “sanctuary” policies and broader disagreements related to immigration enforcement.

Court Explains Why The Injunction Was Denied;

     In denying the preliminary injunction, Judge Menendez emphasized that emergency injunctive relief is considered an extraordinary remedy and requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.

     The court concluded the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this early stage of the litigation. Judge Menendez noted that the parties presented competing evidence and sharply conflicting interpretations of the operation’s scope, purpose, and constitutional limits, making it inappropriate for the court to halt the operation before full adjudication.

Acknowledgment Of Impacts, But Limits On Court Authority;

    While declining to pause the operation, Judge Menendez acknowledged extensive evidence submitted by the plaintiffs regarding the alleged impacts of Operation Metro Surge on daily life throughout Minnesota.

     The order referenced claims of disruptions to schools, emergency services, and small businesses, as well as allegations of racial profiling and excessive force by federal agents. However, the court stressed that such allegations, standing alone, did not justify stopping the entire operation at the preliminary stage.

     Judge Menendez also cited recent precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, explaining that if narrower injunctions involving federal law-enforcement actions were previously deemed overly broad by the appellate court, then an injunction halting an entire statewide federal operation would be even less likely to survive appellate review.

Reaction From State, Local, And Federal Officials;

     Following the ruling, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey criticized the decision, arguing the operation has fostered fear and instability rather than improved public safety. Attorney General Ellison echoed those concerns, characterizing the ruling as an early procedural setback rather than a final determination on the constitutional issues raised by the state.

     Federal officials welcomed the decision. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling, while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the department would continue its enforcement mission in accordance with federal law.

What Comes Next;

     The denial of a preliminary injunction means Operation Metro Surge will remain in effect while the litigation continues through further briefing, discovery, and potential hearings. The ruling does not resolve the ultimate constitutional questions raised by Minnesota and local officials; rather, it addresses only whether the plaintiffs met the demanding legal standard required to pause the operation at the outset of the case.

Editor’s Note:

This article was written by Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor, and Englebrook Independent News independently verified the date of the court’s order, January 31, 2026, the identity of the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez, and the court’s disposition denying the motion for a preliminary injunction by reviewing the court’s written order and contemporaneous reporting. The case remains ongoing, and no final ruling on the merits has been issued.