Judge hears arguments in lawsuit alleging ICE racially profiling Somali and Latino residents
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
A federal judge is considering whether to temporarily restrict immigration enforcement practices in Minnesota, following a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other attorneys over a months-long enforcement surge that federal officials say is now winding down.
The hearing, held in U.S. District Court Wednesday, centers on a lawsuit alleging that officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) engaged in widespread racial profiling and unlawful stops during an enforcement operation known as Operation Metro Surge.
Allegations of racial profiling and unlawful arrests
The plaintiffs include U.S. citizens and immigrants who say federal agents stopped and arrested them without warrants or probable cause and disproportionately targeted Somali and Latino residents.
The lead plaintiff, Mubashir Khalif Hussen, is a 20-year-old Somali American and U.S. citizen. According to the lawsuit, he was detained by ICE agents last December in Minneapolis during the first phase of Operation Metro Surge.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
According to the complaint, on Dec. 10, 2025, Hussen was standing outside a restaurant talking to another person while ICE agents were nearby. “An unmarked SUV drove up, and two federal agents wearing ski masks exited,” reads the complaint. “One walked quickly toward Mr. Hussen but did not say anything to him. Mr. Hussen turned to walk away, hoping to be left alone, at which point the federal agent grabbed him and pushed him into a restaurant. A second agent entered, and as a crowd gathered, the two dragged Mr. Hussen out of the restaurant and put him into a headlock on the ground.”
At a hearing Tuesday, Raul Aguirre Castrejon said he was handcuffed after being stopped by agents last month. Agents then asked him for an ID and released him after they realized he had legal status. Aguirre Catrejon, who filed a court declaration supporting the lawsuit that includes his experience, said he understands that speaking up could affect his path to citizenship, but he made a promise to his niece, who was with him during the encounter.
The complaint alleges that Somali and Latino residents were significantly more likely to be stopped or questioned, even when they were U.S. citizens or had lawful immigration status. Plaintiffs argue that race, language, clothing, and other aspects of appearance played a central role in enforcement decisions.
They are not seeking financial damages. Instead, they are asking the court to impose temporary limits on how immigration agents operate in Minnesota while the case proceeds. Specifically, they want the judge to block what they describe as race-based stops, prevent warrantless arrests that do not meet legal standards, and require agents to recognize valid proof of citizenship or lawful status when presented.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the alleged incidents reflect a broader pattern and that fear within affected communities remains widespread. They told the court that some residents have been reluctant to go to work, run errands, or leave their homes, and said that fear itself constitutes part of the harm.
Government disputes claims, cites scaled-back operations
Government attorneys strongly disputed the characterization of ICE’s actions. They argued that agents are operating lawfully and within their discretion, noting that immigration enforcement often requires quick decisions in fluid and evolving situations.
They also told the court that ICE has recently reduced its presence in the Twin Cities and is now focused largely on fraud investigations rather than broader immigration enforcement efforts. According to government lawyers, the plaintiffs are drawing sweeping conclusions from what they described as a limited number of encounters.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that there is no concrete evidence demonstrating a meaningful drawdown in enforcement activity.
Plaintiffs are concerned about future harm as operation continues
The hearing did not address whether the government will ultimately prevail in the case. Instead, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud focused on whether the plaintiffs have shown a sufficient risk of ongoing or future harm to justify immediate court intervention.
The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction – a temporary court order that would restrict certain enforcement practices while the lawsuit moves forward. To grant that request, the judge must determine whether there is credible evidence that the challenged practices are likely to continue and cause harm.
During the hearing, Judge Tostrud pressed government attorneys for proof supporting their claim that enforcement operations are winding down.
The judge is expected to issue a written decision in the coming days or weeks. Until then, the enforcement practices being challenged in the lawsuit may continue unless the court orders otherwise.
