'Huge': Trump's own appointee finds ICE likely ran unlawful racial profiling operation
A federal judge appointed to the bench by Donald Trump issued a 111-page ruling Monday, finding that the president's own immigration enforcement machine likely ran an unconstitutional racial profiling operation targeting Black and Latino Minnesotans.
The ruling, filed in the District of Minnesota, found "clear" evidence that ICE and Border Patrol agents detained more than two dozen American citizens and legal residents during "Operation Metro Surge," a 3,000-officer invasion of the Twin Cities, based on skin color.
A Somali man was grabbed while walking to a mosque. A Hispanic Target worker was tackled and had an officer's knee pressed to his neck. A naturalized U.S. citizen was detained on his own front porch and threatened by an agent: "I don’t care if you’re a citizen, next time I’m going to take you. I don’t care if I have to do extra paperwork.”
Judge Eric Tostrud concluded the administration had adopted a policy authorizing stops and arrests "without reasonable suspicion" and "without probable cause," in apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The judge still denied the injunction, ruling the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were likely to get grabbed again now that the surge has wound down.
"Though Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional policies, Plaintiffs have not shown that irreparable injury is likely to befall them in the immediate future. This is largely owing to a significant reduction in the scope of Defendants’ Minnesota-based operations," the judge wrote.
The ruling stunned legal experts.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at American Immigration Council, wrote on X, "This is HUGE. In a lawsuit against Operation Metro Surge, a Trump appointee rules that @DHSGov 'likely maintained unconstitional policies' during the massive ICE operation. However, 'largely owing to' ICE's decreased presence in Minneapolis, the judge denied a court order."
Ryan Goodman, chaired professor at NYU Law and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, noted that the judge concluded, "Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim."
"Big win for plaintiffs. Writing is on wall," he said, referring to Mubashir Khalif Hussen, Mahamed Eydarus and Jonathan Aguilar Garcia, who sued the Trump administration.