The judge ended the hearing in recess without ruling from the bench, citing the high importance of the case.
A federal judge heard arguments on Jan. 26 from the state of Minnesota calling for an emergency block to the Trump administration’s deployment of thousands of federal immigration agents to the Twin Cities over the past two months.
The plaintiffs claim that the federal government’s immigration agent buildup, “Operation Metro Surge,” breaches Minnesota’s state sovereignty and violates the 10th Amendment, which grants authority to the states that the Constitution does not explicitly delegate to the federal government.
“I think that this weekend demonstrated, in a terrifying way, that the current situation is absolutely untenable,” attorney Sara Lathrop said, referring to the shooting of a U.S. citizen by a Border Patrol agent on Jan. 24.
“We do not deny that these are serious questions. These are difficult questions, but the relief that we need needs to be now, in order to take down the temperature and allow those important questions to be answered.”
Justice Department attorneys defended Operation Metro Surge and argued that the Trump administration is trying to enforce federal immigration laws in Minnesota, citing the state’s so-called sanctuary policies that federal officials argue shield illegal immigrants from detention and deportation.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez analyzed both arguments in a hearing Monday morning and questioned the district court’s authority over separation of powers questions—namely, between the state and federal governments.
“One of the things I’m struggling with is that not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction, and there are other things that are supposed to rein in this kind of conduct,” she said from the bench.
“All branches of the federal government are supposed to honor separation of powers between themselves and federalist interests of the state.
“It must be that work is being done elsewhere to try to bring an end to what’s described here, not just counting on a single district court issuing a single injunction, which would inevitably and very quickly go to the Eighth Circuit, regardless of whether I write [temporary restraining order] on the top or preliminary injunction.”
Menendez suggested that if she granted a preliminary injunction, it would still be appealable “regardless of whether other injunctive relief is still underway.”
Due to the high importance of the case and “because it’s extremely important that I’m doing everything I can to get it right,” Menendez said, she ended the hearing without ruling on the plaintiff’s request.
By Jacob Burg
