It’s no secret: Actions of the approximately 3,000 federal agents in Minnesota this winter triggered a wave of lawsuits against the Trump administration.
It’s been over four months since the first lawsuit was filed, and the ongoing process of gathering and evaluating evidence in several ongoing cases will likely play out for months. The plaintiffs include protesters, pastors, immigrants, K-12 school administrators, human rights advocates, local law enforcement and the state of Minnesota itself.
Alleged are violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, among other things, which the federal government has denied. Those suing the federal government are challenging everything from the treatment of detainees and protesters to enforcement policies to the handling of evidence in Renee Good and Alex Pretti’s killings.
Related: Lawsuits in Minnesota over immigration policy include questions over immigration court access
Including the two lawsuits responding to Operation Metro Surge, Minnesota is a plaintiff in over 50 cases challenging the policies and actions of President Donald Trump’s second administration.
In an interview about the volume of lawsuits, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison described the need for state governments – and the judicial branch – to act as a check on federal power.
“We’re not on the verge of authoritarianism, we’re well into the establishment of it,” Ellison said. “That doesn’t mean they win, but it means they have begun.”
Here’s a rundown of the major lawsuits filed in response to Operation Metro Surge, in the order they were filed, and their current status.
Among First Amendment lawsuits is case with 142 statements from protesters, legal observers
- Date filed: Dec. 17, 2025
- Who is involved: The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government on behalf of protesters, legal observers and others
- Status: Hearing scheduled for May 4, 2026
Initially, the American Civil Liberties Union won its request for an emergency order to stop federal agents from retaliation against peaceful protesters, among other requirements.
But that Jan. 16 court order lasted less than a week. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declared it too broad and vague.
Now the case alleges a pattern of free speech suppression and retaliation against legal observers and protesters. The ACLU has filed a request for the case to proceed as a class action.
Since its Dec. 17 filing, the case has gathered sworn statements from 142 people describing alleged illegal conduct by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies.
One such filing is from a 38-year-old Minneapolis man who attended a Jan. 24 protest in the immediate aftermath of Alex Pretti’s death. The man describes a chaotic scene with federal agents throwing flash bangs, and shooting non-lethal ammunition at protesters’ backs as they ran away.
Then, the man describes watching as agents “surged” at another protester who was walking away with his hands in the air.
“We watched the man getting sprayed with a chemical irritant, at point blank range, in the face while he was subdued on the ground with multiple agents kneeling on top of his back,” the declaration reads.
According to the amended court complaint, statements like those together “tell a story of widespread cruel, immoral, and unconstitutional conduct by DHS agents.”
Attorneys for the federal government have denied the lawsuit’s allegations, describing an “epidemic of violent, obstructive, dangerous, and often criminal behavior” by protesters that justify its officers’ tactics.
A hearing is scheduled for May 4.
After failing to expel 3,000 agents, state’s case is ongoing
- Date filed: Jan. 12, 2026
- Who is involved: The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the federal government.
- Status: An amended court complaint was filed on April 20, 2026.
Five days after a federal agent shot and killed Renee Good, the state of Minnesota filed a lawsuit asking a judge to immediately end Operation Metro Surge.
That did not happen.
After that initial loss, the state of Minnesota on April 20 filed an amended court complaint that asks a judge to rule as to whether Operation Metro Surge itself was illegal. It reiterates many initial allegations, including that the federal government violated the Tenth Amendment’s state sovereignty protections by sending thousands of agents to Minnesota.
“The massive deployment of armed agents to Minnesota was not related to any legitimate law enforcement objectives, and instead was an alarming escalation of the Trump Administration’s central, unlawful goals: retaliation, commandeering, and coercion,” reads the new court complaint.
Related: Minnesota attorney general’s evidence portal draws nearly 1,500 submissions for potential lawsuits in first month
The federal government has until May 20 to respond and previously filed a motion to dismiss.
In their initial legal response, attorneys for the federal government said Minnesota’s legal argument “collapses with the slightest scrutiny.” They cited the federal government’s supreme right to enforce immigration law, among other things.
Judge: ICE racially profiled people in unconstitutional stops
- Date filed: Jan. 15, 2026
- Who is involved: The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of people who say they were subjected to illegal immigration stops.
- Status: After a March 9 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the federal government has until June to file a response.
On March 9, a judge ruled that federal agents’ conduct did, in many cases, violate the Fourth Amendment when agents stopped people without reasonable suspicion, just based on their race and ethnicity.
But the judge stopped short of issuing a court order to pause that conduct, finding too little evidence to show the plaintiffs – who had already been stopped by ICE – would be stopped again.
That’s the first major ruling since its mid-January filing. Now, the federal government has until June 15 to file a formal response.
In its initial court response, attorneys for the federal government said stops made by their agents were justified under the Fourth Amendment. Federal officials have publicly defended agents’ actions, saying they conduct targeted enforcement without racial profiling, legal documents show.
Many sworn statements in the case detail an opposite narrative.
In one example, a man describes driving away from Walmart with his niece when a car “nearly ran us off the road.” Five to six agents in that car then allegedly pulled the man from his vehicle, pointed weapons and handcuffed him while saying, “you’re not from here.”
The man, who has legal status, was eventually released. In the legal filing, he said agents told him they stopped his car because it is registered to a man and was being driven by a woman.
In another filing, a man said he showed agents his green card when they arrived at the construction site where he works. They drove him to the Fort Snelling immigration facility anyway, he said, saying the document was fake.
“I had to watch as they rounded up more brown-skinned workers from the site. I had to watch as they pursued a fleeing man and broke his windows and dragged him into a car,” reads his legal declaration.
Case over access to phone calls, attorneys for Whipple detainees is also ongoing
- Date filed: Jan. 27, 2026
- Who is involved: The Advocates for Human Rights sued on behalf of people detained at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building.
- Status: After court rulings in plaintiffs’ favor, a pretrial conference is scheduled for May 18.
After two court orders in its favor, The Advocates for Human Rights is still pursuing legal accountability in a class action case over due process violations for detainees at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building.
A judge issued a court order in February and extended it in March. The preliminary injunction says detainees at Whipple must be allowed free, unmonitored phone calls, meetings with attorneys, and be able to remain in Minnesota for the first 72 hours of detention, among other things.
The case broadly centers on Fifth Amendment violations to the right to due process. A pretrial conference is scheduled for May 18.
Related: Lawsuits update: The 12 hours of Whipple evidence that made a judge side with detainees again: non-working phones, treatment like ‘animals’
Per legal discovery so far, there were zero outgoing calls from phones in Whipple holding cells for most of January 2026. Former detainees told the judge about begging to use phones outside the locked cells to call attorneys who could help them out of inhumane conditions.
Attorneys representing the federal government have made several arguments in response to the allegations, including that Whipple is a processing center focused on rapid intake rather than long-term detention where officials have largely made efforts to comply with the judge’s orders.
Minnesota school districts still attempting to pause federal policy on ‘sensitive locations’
- Date filed: Feb. 4, 2026
- Who is involved: Two public school districts, Fridley and Duluth, and the Education Minnesota union sued the federal government over immigration agents’ access to K-12 schools.
- Status: The case awaits a judge’s initial ruling
Days before the drawdown began, two Minnesota school districts and statewide education union filed a lawsuit over ICE agents’ access to K-12 schools.
The Feb. 4 request from the Fridley Public School District, Duluth Public School District and Education Minnesota asked a judge for an emergency order to pause the federal policy allowing immigration enforcement on K-12 school grounds.
The lawsuit argues the second Trump administration reversed decades of precedent that had discouraged immigration enforcement on K-12 school grounds, driving spikes in student absences and widespread fear, among other consequences.
Attorneys for the federal government have so far denied the claims in the lawsuit and, among other things, argued that internal guidance on protected areas like schools has fluctuated over time.
Pastoral care at Whipple
- Date filed: Feb. 23, 2026
- Who is involved: Religious organizations sued the federal government over faith leaders’ access to the Whipple Building.
- Status: Details of faith leaders’ access to Whipple are being negotiated following a judge’s order in favor of plaintiffs.
As of mid April, religious organizations and officials from the Whipple building are still negotiating the details of how, exactly, pastoral visits will take place for detainees there.
A judge previously ordered the Whipple building to allow visits from faith leaders. The lawsuit, brought by various religious organizations, alleged the federal government violated the First Amendment right to freedom of religion by denying visits like those.
“By categorically barring faith leaders from praying with detainees, offering sacraments, or providing spiritual guidance, the government imposes a profound and unjustified burden on religious exercise at the precise moment it is most urgently needed,” reads the Feb. 23 legal complaint.
Plaintiffs are the Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, and a local Catholic priest, Christopher Collins.
The federal government has not filed a formal response.
Tauria Rich, the deputy field office director for ICE’s St. Paul office, submitted a court declaration saying Whipple is intended for short-term stays, where “visitors and visitation is rare and limited,” and it is subject to safety risks by allowing visitors due to nearby protest activity. She also said clergy visits are being handled on a case-by case basis now that most federal agents have left.
Minnesota still suing over access to crime scene evidence
- Date filed: March 24, 2026
- Who is involved: The state of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension are suing the federal government over three incidents in Minneapolis in which bystanders were killed or injured.
- Status: The case awaits a response from the federal government.
Minnesota law enforcement agencies have still not been able to access crime scene evidence related to the January shootings of Renee Good, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis and Alex Pretti.
That’s according to a lawsuit attempting to access that evidence, filed on March 24 by the state of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Drew Evans.
The lawsuit builds off a narrower case, which has been dismissed, that focused just on Pretti’s death.
“At stake is not only Minnesota agencies’ access to evidence central to these shootings but also a fundamental principle of our constitutional system: that the States retain the sovereign authority – and responsibility –to investigate crimes committed within their borders,” reads the legal complaint.
The federal government has not yet filed a response.
Related
