A federal courtroom in Minnesota is now at the center of a growing national debate over federal immigration enforcement powers and state authority, following two fatal shootings involving federal officers during a large-scale immigration operation in the Twin Cities.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez heard arguments on whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement effort in Minnesota. The operation, known as Operation Metro Surge, has drawn legal challenges from the state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, who argue it has led to civil unrest, fear in immigrant communities, and possible constitutional violations.

Although the judge did not issue an immediate ruling, her questions signaled deep concern about the limits of executive authority and the role of the courts in disputes between state governments and federal immigration agencies.

Launched in early December, the federal initiative significantly increased the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents in Minnesota. Federal attorneys told the court that roughly 2,000 ICE personnel and at least 1,000 Border Patrol agents are currently involved in enforcement operations across the Minneapolis–St. Paul area.

The Justice Department says the mission is straightforward: enforce federal immigration law. But Minnesota officials describe the surge as something far broader — an aggressive federal intervention that disrupts local governance and undermines community trust.

Tensions escalated after two people were fatally shot during encounters with federal officers, incidents that sparked protests and intensified scrutiny of enforcement tactics, use-of-force policies, and federal oversight.

During the hearing, Judge Menendez pressed both sides about the constitutional boundaries of federal action.

She questioned whether there are meaningful limits to executive power when immigration enforcement is used as the legal basis for expanded operations. She also expressed skepticism about a recent federal request that Minnesota provide access to voter rolls, Medicaid records, and food assistance data, part of a broader push by the administration that is already being challenged in court.

At several points, the judge emphasized the unusual nature of the case and the lack of clear legal precedent. She appeared cautious about being drawn into broad policy decisions rather than narrowly defined legal questions.

Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Brian Carter argued that the situation on the ground is urgent and requires immediate court intervention.

State and city leaders say they are not attempting to block immigration enforcement entirely. Instead, they are asking the court to restore enforcement levels and practices to what existed before the December surge, arguing that the scale and methods of the current operation exceed constitutional limits.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has called the enforcement push an “unprecedented” and “novel” use of federal power, saying the scale of the deployment is unlike anything the state has previously experienced.

Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers defended the operation as a lawful exercise of federal authority. He argued that the government is empowered to enforce immigration law and that conducting multiple enforcement actions at once does not make the broader effort unconstitutional.

Federal attorneys described Minnesota’s lawsuit as legally unfounded, saying the state is effectively seeking to block federal law enforcement activities. They urged the judge to deny the request for a temporary halt or, at minimum, pause any ruling while appeals are pursued.

The legal fight is unfolding amid growing public demonstrations in Minneapolis. Protests have targeted locations where federal agents were believed to be staying, leading to property damage and arrests. Local police have reported efforts to manage confrontations between demonstrators and federal officers, adding another layer of complexity to an already tense situation.

At the same time, several related legal cases are moving through the courts:

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, are advocating for stricter limits on federal enforcement tactics during public demonstrations.

The outcome of this case could extend well beyond Minnesota. Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia have filed briefs supporting Minnesota’s position, warning that if the operation is upheld, similar enforcement surges could be deployed in other states that resist federal immigration priorities.

Legal scholars say the dispute could help define future limits on federal immigration raids, state sanctuary policies, and the scope of executive branch authority in domestic enforcement actions.

President Donald Trump recently said he had a productive call with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and announced plans to send a senior border policy adviser to Minnesota to oversee coordination. The statement marked a notable shift in tone as legal and political pressures surrounding the operation continue to mount.

Judge Menendez has indicated the case is a priority and that she intends to rule as quickly as possible. If she grants a temporary pause, federal immigration enforcement activities in Minnesota could be significantly scaled back while the lawsuit proceeds. If she declines, the operation is likely to continue, with the dispute moving to higher courts.

For now, Minnesota remains at the center of a high-stakes legal confrontation over immigration enforcement, constitutional limits, and the balance of power between state and federal governments — a case that could shape national immigration policy for years to come.