N※N

Minnesota Sues Federal Government Over ICE Raids

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. sota-sues-federal-government-over-ice-raids.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, January 13th 2026 at 12:56 GMT by Patch

St. Paul, MN - January 13th, 2026 - In a bold move challenging the Biden administration's immigration enforcement strategy, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Governor Tim Walz today announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The lawsuit alleges that a recent and significant increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations within the state constitutes politically motivated retaliation against Minnesota's progressive immigration policies and its support for sanctuary city initiatives. The legal action signals a deepening conflict between states and the federal government over immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit, officially filed in federal court in Minneapolis, aims to immediately halt the intensified ICE activities and compel the release of internal records detailing the decision-making process that led to the increased enforcement. The legal team representing the state argues that DHS's actions directly violate the principle of federalism, preventing the government from leveraging immigration enforcement as a punitive measure against states that hold differing policy viewpoints.

"Minnesota has consistently championed a welcoming environment for immigrants and refugees, and we will not tolerate the federal government attempting to dismantle our values," stated Attorney General Ellison during a press conference held earlier today. "This lawsuit is about safeguarding our state's commitment to inclusivity and protecting the vulnerable individuals within our communities."

Governor Walz echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the detrimental impact of the increased ICE activity on Minnesota's residents and the broader state ethos. "These actions represent a direct assault on our deeply held values," he asserted. "Minnesota will vigorously defend its right to shape its own policies and provide sanctuary to those seeking refuge, irrespective of federal pressure."

The lawsuit specifically points to the sudden and noticeable increase in ICE raids and detentions across the state, noting a pattern that coincides with Minnesota's continued resistance to stricter federal immigration guidelines. Minnesota has a long and established history of providing support and resources to undocumented immigrants, including enacting laws designed to limit the collaboration between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. The state's embrace of "sanctuary city" principles has further put it at odds with more restrictive federal approaches.

Legal experts anticipate that the case will raise significant constitutional questions about the limits of federal power concerning immigration enforcement and the rights of states to enact their own policies. The lawsuit's request for records seeks to uncover whether the decision to escalate ICE operations was driven by a desire to specifically punish Minnesota for its stance on immigration. If evidence of political motivation is discovered, it could significantly weaken DHS's legal standing.

The lawsuit alleges that DHS failed to provide adequate notification to the state prior to the increase in activity, denying Minnesota the opportunity to prepare or offer input, further exacerbating the perceived retaliatory nature of the actions. This lack of communication is another key element the state is using to bolster its case.

As of this report, representatives for DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and ICE Director Tae Johnson, named as defendants in the lawsuit, have not yet issued a formal response to the allegations. However, legal analysts suggest that DHS will likely argue that its actions are part of routine enforcement efforts designed to maintain national security and border control - a common defense used in similar legal challenges. The outcome of this lawsuit is likely to have ripple effects across the nation, potentially influencing how other states navigate the complex and often contentious relationship between state and federal immigration policy.