Judge Denies Immediate Restraining Order In High-Stakes Legal Battle

Thursday, January 15, 2026, 8:30 A.M. ET. 5 Minute Read, By Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor: Englebrook Independent News,

MINNEAPOLIS, MN.- A federal judge in Minnesota on Wednesday declined to block U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from continuing its intensified enforcement campaign known as Operation Metro Surge across the state, a decision that allows federal agents to maintain and expand operations in the Twin Cities and greater Minnesota while the case progresses in court.

     U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden, heard oral arguments in the lawsuit filed earlier this week by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt ICE activities statewide. The plaintiffs argue that the federal enforcement surge, which has brought thousands of ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents into the state, has resulted in constitutional violations and community harm.

     Despite the urgency invoked by state officials and civil liberties advocates, Judge Menendez found that the record before the court at Wednesday’s hearing did not support an immediate halt to the federal operation. Instead, she declined to issue the restraining order at this time, citing the complexity of the legal issues and the need for additional evidence from both sides.

Background: The Lawsuit And Operation Metro Surge;

     The lawsuit, filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, accuses the federal government and DHS officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, of conducting what state officials have described as a “federal invasion” of Minnesota communities. It claims that ICE and other agents have engaged in militarized raids, excessive use of force, unlawful detentions, and actions that chill First Amendment rights of residents and peaceful observers alike.

     “Operation Metro Surge,” launched by the Department of Homeland Security in December, represents one of the largest federal immigration enforcement operations in U.S. history, with thousands of agents deployed to Minneapolis–Saint Paul and surrounding counties. Federal officials have defended the operation as lawful enforcement of immigration laws and public safety measures.

     The state’s filing sought not only to halt current enforcement actions but also to ensure that ICE agents are temporarily barred from certain tactics, including approaching and arresting individuals who are not resisting, employing chemical irritants against peaceful observers, or targeting persons solely for exercising their constitutional rights.

Judge’s Ruling And Court Deadlines;

     During proceedings, Judge Menendez acknowledged the gravity of the dispute but said that the evidence presented so far was insufficient to justify an immediate TRO that would stop the federal operation wholesale.

     She set new deadlines in the case:

• Federal government attorneys must submit their response by January 19
• The state’s reply is due by January 22

     A decision on the restraining order, or a broader preliminary injunction, could follow shortly thereafter.

     “It’s a frontier case in constitutional law, and the court needs more time to examine the complex issues involved,” the judge stated from the bench, according to court observers.

     Legal experts say the ruling does not represent a final judgment on the merits of the state’s constitutional claims but reflects judicial caution before granting drastic relief without a full evidentiary record.

Reactions From Both Sides;

     Attorney General Keith Ellison condemned the ruling as a setback for Minnesotans’ rights and reiterated that the federal surge has had “serious, harmful impacts” on communities across the state. He pledged to continue seeking court intervention and further judicial review of ICE’s conduct.

     Federal government attorneys countered that DHS and ICE actions fall squarely within federal authority and that Minnesota’s lawsuit improperly interferes with federal law enforcement powers. DHS lawyers also assured the court that federal agencies would comply fully with all judicial orders and deadlines.

Public Tensions And Political Fallout;

The court battle unfolds amid intense public controversy. ICE operations in Minnesota have already resulted in hundreds, and in some reports, more than 2,000 arrests, fueling protests, legal challenges, and nationwide attention.

    The recent fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman during a confrontation with ICE agents earlier this month has dramatically escalated tensions and brought renewed scrutiny to federal enforcement tactics.

     Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have filed additional lawsuits seeking to curb ICE’s use of force and limit what they describe as unconstitutional detentions and crowd-control tactics. 

What Happens Next;

     With Judge Menendez declining to halt the operation, Operation Metro Surge continues for now across Minnesota and the Twin Cities.

     The next major legal milestone will come after January 22, when the court reviews both sides’ filings and determines whether to impose restrictions, grant a preliminary injunction, or allow ICE operations to continue uninterrupted.

     State officials have indicated they are prepared to appeal if necessary, signaling that this legal fight and its national implications for immigration enforcement are far from over.

Editor’s Note:

This report is based on court filings, federal court proceedings, and verified reporting from multiple Minnesota news outlets covering the Minnesota ICE litigation. Deadlines and judicial actions remain subject to change as the case proceeds through the federal court system. All information has been verified and confirmed by Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor for Englebrook Independent News.