Minnesota’s Metro Surge response changed politics and the state


WASHINGTON — Operation Metro Surge ended about two months ago, but Minnesota’s response to the massive immigration crackdown has had a lasting effect on U.S. politics — turning an issue that President Donald Trump considered a political asset into a liability — and on the views Americans have of the nation’s newcomers.

And it may have reshaped the way the state’s immigrants view their community.

Humberto Flores, who owns a residential and commercial cleaning company in the Twin Cities and came to the United States from Mexico in 2005, said that after the outpouring of help from Minnesotans, many of his immigrant neighbors looked at their adopted communities with clear eyes for the first time.

Related: Gauging the cost of Operation Metro Surge is a work in progress, but some numbers are emerging

He said he laughed when one of them told him he had never really noticed a beautiful park in the neighborhood before. Flores said his neighbor hadn’t noticed the park because he had lacked a full sense of belonging.

“We came to fully appreciate Minnesota and the neighborhoods we live in,” Flores said. “It was beautiful. Perspectives really changed.”

Like many immigrants, Flores’ life was upended by Operation Metro Surge. His employees were afraid to come to work. His children feared going to school. And his office became a staging area for food donated by churches and others for immigrants in need.

“Everyone looked out for everyone,” he said.

Flores said he was furious that he could not provide something basic — the protection of his children. But he said he was also touched when his U.S.-born customers and neighbors checked in on his family’s wellbeing.

“They called to ask, ‘Do you need anything?’” he said.

Flores also said that outpouring of support has engendered gratitude in the immigrant community for Minnesotans who stubbornly demonstrated in glacial temperatures against the 3,000 federal agents who poured into the state, using their cell phones to document their activities.

“It was marvelous,” he said, as was the help offered by thousands of others who took immigrant children to school and watched over them at bus stops, brought food to immigrant households and offered rental assistance and other types of aid.

“Everything changed in our community in a split second,” said Liliana Letran-Garcia, president of Communidades Latinas Unidas en Servicio (CLUES), a nonprofit that provides immigrant aid.

Letran-Garcia, who emigrated from Guatemala to Minnesota 21 years ago, teared up when discussing the state’s response to the surge. “We showed the entire country and the world that Minnesota is a place of care, dignity and collective responsibility,” Letran-Garcia said.

The Minnesota effect

Even before the surge, Minnesota’s immigrants were under stress. Most immigrants have to learn a new language as well as reestablish themselves in a new land and learn about new cultural norms. Many immigrants start at the lower end of the socio-economic scale and work jobs where they are often exploited.

But now they were also vilified as criminals by Trump and his administration, which was stripping legal protections from asylum seekers and others who lived and worked in the country under the Temporary Protected Status program, and which was threatening mass deportations.

Why did Minnesotans reject the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants, so much so that it resulted in financial pain for many, the arrests of about 4,000 people and the deaths of two protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti?

Largely because of the videos of the deaths of Good and Pretti by Minnesotans who  had taken to the streets, the state’s response to the surge was noted around the globe. It also had an impact on American attitudes on immigration as polls showed plummeting support for mass deportations and Trump’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of the president’s domestic policy.

The change in American attitude appears long-lasting. An Emerson College survey released last week determined that 53% of the respondents approved of Trump’s immigration policies and 43% disapproved.

Related: Bill seeks $10 million for Minnesota cities to help with costs incurred during Operation Metro Surge

Those poll numbers shifted immigration policy. Tough-talking Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol official in charge of Operation Metro Surge who said protesters like Good and Pretti “had a choice” to put themselves in danger, was replaced by Tom Homan, who promptly wound down the operation.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was tossed, replaced with  Markwayne Mullin, who has said his goal is to keep DHS from being the lead story in the news every day.

During his confirmation hearing, Mullin expressed regret for calling Pretti “a deranged individual” and said he supports requiring immigration officers to obtain judicial warrants signed by a judge before entering a private home. DHS guidance had been that federal agents would enter a home with an administrative warrant approved by ICE officials.

Meanwhile, fearful of midterm election results, Republican congressional leaders advised GOP lawmakers to avoid the issue, and, in particular, not mention mass deportations.

Congressional Democrats seized on the impact the videos Minnesotans took of federal immigration officers had on public opinion, insisting on reforms of ICE and the Border Patrol and fighting to cut back money for immigration enforcement.

Christopher Uggen, a McKnight Professor in Sociology, Law and Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, said there were probably many reasons that converged to create that response.

One was the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, which Uggen said created “muscle memory” that “left folks quite vigilant regarding law enforcement behavior.”

“But this sort of movement or response was not limited to the activists in the state,” Uggen added.

So other factors were also at play to create a unique “Minnesota effect” that forced the Trump administration to retreat somewhat when it comes to immigration enforcement and sparked congressional Democrats to successfully block new funding for ICE and the Border Patrol. 

The disruption to normal life by the mass deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents and other federal law enforcement officers angered Minnesotans of all political persuasions, Uggen said. And Minnesota’s unique civic culture also played a role.

“Minnesota is unusually high in some measures of civic life, like voting and volunteering,” he said.

Related: Latino-led nonprofit CLUES is ready to be part of the solution to post-Metro Surge housing crisis

Letran-Garcia, of CLUES, said the immigrant enforcement surge also created a surge in her organization, which has provided a behavioral health clinic, employment assistance and other resources to the immigrant community.

“Our needs grew over 150 percent,” she said.” We realized really quickly that  (Operation Metro Surge) was nothing that we had ever seen before.”

Letran-Garcia said a priority for CLUES was to provide what she said was accurate information about what was going on, “making sure it was based on facts” and informing immigrants about what documents they needed to have and “what to say and what not to say” to federal agents.

She said Minnesotans’ generosity during the surge, which included an influx of donations to CLUES that allowed the organization to provide $1.5 million in rental assistance to immigrants who had quit their jobs out of fear, “moved us to the core.”

Scaling up quickly

Lucy Olson, a psychologist who works as a consultant and lives in Minneapolis, is not an immigrant advocate or activist but became one of thousands of Minnesotans who helped create the Minnesota effect.

Olson said she met a woman named Nohemy from El Salvador about three years ago who had been trafficked and was homeless with two small children.

She offered Nohemy and her children lodging in her home for the weekend. But Nohemy and her children ended up living with Olson for about a year since establishing the Salvadoran family in a new life took a lot longer than Olson had estimated.

“I became very aware of the challenges that newcomers faced,” Olson said.

When the surge occurred last winter, Nohemy sought to help her neighbors. Learning of the need, Olson and a growing group of volunteers did, too, raising about $700,000, partly through a GoFundMe page, to help pay the rent and provide groceries for about 500 families who were sheltering in their homes.

After the first month, the volunteers realized they needed help and reached out to CLUES. 

“We were able to scale up very quickly,” Olson said. Eventually, Olson’s group of volunteers reached about 2,000 members.

Olson said the federal immigration enforcement surge forged new community ties. “Thousands and thousands of Minneapolis residents have gotten to know their Hispanic neighbors in a new way,” she said.

Uggen, as a sociologist, said it is perhaps too early to tell “how replicable or scalable” the pushback in Minnesota to aggressive immigration enforcement is and whether other cities or states would mobilize to protect immigrants in a similar way.

“Those questions are not yet answered,” he said.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


In the closing days of August, two federal appeals courts issued noteworthy decisions at the intersection of workplace conduct, computer law and online platforms.  The two opinions were released during a period of time this past summer amidst the continuing flurry of AI-related case developments and perhaps did not get wide media attention (but which might prove to be important cases in the future).

  • Second Circuit – CDA Section 230. The court ruled that a software platform was not entitled to CDA Section 230 immunity – at least at the early stage in the case – based on allegations that it actively contributed to the unlawful software content at issue by manufacturing and distributing an emissions-control “defeat devices.” (U.S. v. EZ Lynk, SEZC, No. 24-2386 (2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2025)). The opinion’s discussion of what it means to be a “developer” of content has implications for future litigation that might involve generative AI, app stores, marketplaces, and IoT ecosystems, where certain fact patterns could blur the line between passive hosting and active co-development.
  • Third Circuit – CFAA and Trade Secrets: Days later, the Third Circuit issued an important decision (subsequently amended, with minor changes that did not change the holding) that further develops CFAA case law post-Van Buren. The court held that CFAA liability, an anti-hacking statute, does not extend to workplace computer use violations. (NRA Group, LLC v. Durenleau, No. 24-1123 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (vacated by Oct. 7, 2025 amended opinion), reh’g en banc denied (Oct. 7, 2025)). The court also addressed and rejected a novel claim of trade secret misappropriation based on access to account passwords.     

Together, the cases show how courts continue to interpret the reach of technology-related statutes in contexts never contemplated when those laws were first enacted.

Second Circuit – CDA Section 230 Immunity Denied for Software Platform

The Second Circuit EZ Lynk case centered on whether a platform that connects vehicles to cloud-based diagnostic and customization software could be held liable under Section 203 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), which prohibits the manufacture and sale of devices used to defeat vehicle emissions controls. The government argued that the EZ Lynk System, which consists of an electronic device, a mobile app and third party software (or “defeat tunes”), was an illegal “defeat device” because it enabled car owners to download and install “delete tunes” that disable manufacturer-installed emissions controls.  EZ Lynk countered that its system was a neutral tool that, by itself, has no effect on emissions controls and therefore EZ Lynk should be shielded from liability by CDA Section 230 because it merely hosted the third-party software at issue. 

In March 2024 the lower court dismissed the government’s case on the main count on CDA grounds, reasoning that even if the EZ Lynk System was a defeat device, EZ Lynk was only acting as a publisher of third party content. The lower court concluded that EZ Lynk’s alleged collaboration with defeat tune creators and EZ Lynk’s employees’ social media interactions with users to assist in installation and use did not amount to “material contributions” that would defeat Section 230 immunity.  

The Second Circuit reversed. It found the complaint adequately alleged that EZ Lynk “directly and materially contributed to” the creation of delete tunes and may not have acted as a neutral intermediary. Among other things, the court pointed to allegations that EZ Lynk worked closely with major “delete tune” creators (e.g., previewing devices with them before launch and ensuring compatibility) and administered a social media forum where its employees and partners advised customers on using delete tunes. At this early stage, the court held such allegations were sufficient to defeat EZ Lynk’s CDA Section 230 defense as it may have been an “information content provider” in part.[1]

The decision reaffirms that Section 230 immunity may not apply where a platform “directly and materially contributed to the underlying illegal conduct.”  Although the context of this government enforcement was a novel one for interpreting CDA immunity, the reasoning may resonate in other settings, including software platforms that promote and directly assist app developers with unlawful functions or modifications (e.g., for IoT devices) and marketplaces that facilitate illegal product use, raising the risk of being treated as a co-developer of unlawful content.

Third Circuit – CFAA and Trade Secret Claims Against Employees

In NRA Group, the company argued that two employees violated the CFAA when one of them, while home sick, asked a colleague to log into her work computer to retrieve a spreadsheet of system passwords to help her remotely access a work document, all in violation of workplace computer policies. 

CFAA Issue

The Third Circuit held that the employees’ conduct did not violate the CFAA because: (1) The statute targets “hacking” or code-based unauthorized access, not workplace policy violations by current employees; (2) Both employees were authorized users of the employer’s computer systems; even though the employees may have violated computer use policies (e.g., sharing credentials, emailing passwords), the court found they acted within their granted access rights. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the company’s action against the employees. [Note: This holding is reminiscent of a prior Ninth Circuit decision rejecting CFAA liability against an employee that emailed internal documents to himself after being given credentials to do so from a colleague].  

Applying the Supreme Court’s Van Buren decision, the Third Circuit held that the CFAA’s “exceeds authorized access” provision covers those who obtain information from computer networks or databases to which their computer access does not extend. As such, the court stated that “absent evidence of code-based hacking, the CFAA does not countenance claims premised on a breach of workplace computer-use policies by current employees.” In the Van Buren decision’s most cited metaphor, the Supreme Court characterized the CFAA “authorization” scheme as a “gates-up-or-down” approach where the CFAA prohibits accessing data one is not authorized to access.  Under this understanding, one either can or cannot access a computer system, and one either can or cannot access certain areas within the system, as some areas are fully “off limits.” Following this rationale, the Third Circuit held: “Under Van Buren, the ‘gates’ of access were ‘up’ for both women—neither hacked into NRA’s systems. […] No one hacked anything by deploying code to enter a part of NRA’s systems to which they had no access.” 

The Van Buren decision continues to shape CFAA litigation beyond the employment context. Its reasoning has featured prominently in disputes over web scraping (e.g., in this closely-watched litigation) where courts must decide whether a website’s “authorization gates” are open or closed to scrapers and whether technical measures suffice to close those gates. 

Trade Secret – Passwords Issue

In an issue we don’t ever recall seeing in recent years – even the court found caselaw on this point was “thin and undeveloped” – the Third Circuit also considered the company’s trade secret claim based on the allegation that the creation and emailing of the password spreadsheet at issue constituted trade secret misappropriation.  The court rejected the claim, finding that the passwords themselves are “letters and numbers” and are not protectable trade secrets because they lack independent economic value apart from what they protect.  Under general law, trade secrets must have independent economic value, and while the passwords were a compilation of data, they were not bundled with other, presumably protectable information like raw customer information or pricing strategies.  Unlike a proprietary formula or customer list, the value of a password lies only in its role as a barrier, one that can be eliminated simply by changing it.


[1] In pertinent part, Section 230(c) states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The Complaint alleges the EZ Lynk Cloud is a platform on which people exchange information in the form of software. As a side note, the appeals court noted that it was not ruling on whether software is “information” under Section 230 – in most cases, “information” typically pertains to content, in many forms. Though, it did cite other decisions that found that software could be “information provided by another content provider,” including one decision where an app store was protected by CDA immunity for losses from a fraudulent crypto wallet app (a ruling that was later affirmed by the Second Circuit).



Source link