Trump, Bondi Statements Fuel Legal Case Against Minnesota Surge

President Donald Trump’s threat of “retribution” and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s explicit policy demands may be undercutting the federal government’s legal arguments defending its immigration crackdown in Minnesota.

A judge hearing a lawsuit seeking to halt the ongoing surge of thousands of federal immigration agents in the Twin Cities repeatedly cited Trump’s and Bondi’s statements Monday as evidence that the massive “Operation Metro Surge” in the Twin Cities isn’t aimed solely at enforcing immigration laws. Rather, their comments appear to suggest it is intended to strongarm Minnesota officials into complying with administration policy demands.

“Is the executive trying to achieve a goal through force that it can’t achieve through the courts?” U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez wondered as she weighed a push by Minnesota officials to call off the operation altogether.

Menendez declined to rule on the matter immediately and seemed to agonize over how to draw a line between legitimate federal law enforcement and an unconstitutional incursion on Minnesota’s sovereignty. Complicating the matter were signals of deescalation by Trump, who spoke Monday with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and suggested they were on the same “wavelength” about the way forward.

“Not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction,” the Biden-appointed judge said. “It must be that work is being done elsewhere … not just counting on a single district court issuing a single injunction.”

But the judge faced demands from Minnesota’s leaders to act quickly, in light of the killing Friday of VA nurse Alex Pretti by a federal agent, amid an escalating federal presence.

“We ask the court to issue a [restraining order] today,” said Lindsey Middlecamp, a lawyer for the state. “Not tomorrow. Not next week, but today.”

During the nearly three-hour hearing in Minneapolis federal court, the judge repeatedly focused on Trump’s vow on social media earlier this month to bring “a day of reckoning and retribution” to Minnesota, and on a Saturday letter from Bondi to Walz that appeared to set conditions for the administration to wind down the surge. Lawyers for the state described Bondi’s missive as a “shakedown” and a “ransom note.”

While one of Bondi’s demands involved access to immigrants being released from state jails and prisons, two others seemed to link the surge to issues not related directly to immigration enforcement such as fraud in the SNAP program, better known as food stamps, and a dispute over the Trump administration’s demand for access to Minnesota’s voter rolls.

Lawyers for Minnesota and the governments of the Twin Cities argued that the surge is violating the 10th Amendment, which protects states from encroachment by the federal government. The provision has been held both to prevent the federal government from “commandeering” local officials and from using coercion to force a state to comply with federal demands.

“They’re trying to hijack the state's legislative process,” Brian Carter, a lawyer with the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, said of the Trump administration. “They’re trying to get us to turn over voter rolls. What does that have to do [with immigration?] The federal government is attempting to bend the state’s will to its own and that is not allowed under the Constitution.”

Lawyers for the state also complained that the surge seemed intended to sideline the courts by forcing the state to knuckle under on matters that are currently being litigated.

“This administration … is not content with the rule of law,” Carter said. “They are not content with letting the courts work this stuff out. Instead, they put violence into the streets of Minnesota to get what they want. That has to violate the 10th amendment.”

Menendez seemed to accept some aspects of the state’s case, but expressed concerns about how to fashion an order that would end the surge without tying the federal government’s hands to carry out more traditional immigration enforcement. She also challenged the state’s lawyers about when a federal law enforcement operation would become so large or oppressive that it would amount to a 10th Amendment violation.

Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers said the surge wasn’t a form of retaliation but instead a response to lawlessness engendered by the state and local policies.

“The state cannot use the 10th Amendment as a shield and say, ‘We’re not going to help you,’ and then when we come to enforce federal immigration law, then turn around and say, ‘The 10th Amendment would actually prevent you from [doing that.]’ That would turn federalism on its head,” Mayers said. “We are here because of this law enforcement vacuum.”

Menendez pressed Mayers for a tally of the number of federal officers involved in the surge, which has been estimated at 3,000 to 4,000 people. The attorney said he didn’t have a current number but would provide one to the court.

Acting in a separate lawsuit earlier this month brought by anti-immigration-enforcement protesters and observers, Menendez issued an order barring Homeland Security agents from using chemical irritants against peaceful protesters. Her order was quickly paused by a federal appeals court.

Menendez made no promise Monday about when she would rule on the state’s request for a broader restraining order ending the surge, but made clear the case is now her highest priority.

“If I had a burner in front of the front burner, this would be on it,” the judge said.