President Donald Trump speaks as Attorney General Pam Bondi listens during a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal judge in Minnesota pressed the Justice Department as to whether the Trump administration's immigration crackdown was also an unconstitutional effort to strong-arm state and local officials into complying with the president's policy demands. The hearing came as tensions have reached a fever pitch in the wake of federal agents killing 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and licensed gun owner who was shot in the back several times after being disarmed on the streets of Minneapolis.
U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez presided over the hearing Monday, appearing skeptical both of the federal government's reason for sending thousands of federal troops into the city, as well as her own authority to curb "Operation Metro Surge," regardless of the true motivation behind the enforcement action.
Earlier this month, the state filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order immediately blocking the surge while the court decides the case on the merits. Minnesota contended the administration was violating the 10th Amendment, which reinforces federalism, by using the invasion to coerce Trump's political agenda on the state.
At the start of the hearing, attorneys for the state demanded the court halt the "unlawful and unchecked invasion" of the city by agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, Politico's Kyle Cheney reported.
Minnesota special counsel Lindsey Middlecamp argued that federal forces were inflicting widespread and unprecedented violence on the population under the guise of immigration enforcement when the true goal of the administration was to force the state to relinquish its sovereignty.
Middlecamp highlighted a letter Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to Gov. Tim Walz over the weekend that included a list of demands including rolling back its sanctuary city policies, turning over Medicaid and SNAP data, and granting the DOJ's Civil Rights Division access to its voter rolls.
State attorney Brian Scott Carter did not mince words in describing Bondi's letter to the court.
"It's a shakedown letter," he said, according to a report from Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News. "It's a ransom note. That's what you expect from someone who is extorting you."
Carter emphasized that access to voter rolls had nothing to do with immigration, accusing the federal government of trying to "hijack the state's legislative process" and "bend the state's will to its own."
"That is not allowed under the Constitution," Carter told the court, according to Politico.
Carter went on to assert that administration had amassed "an army" in Minnesota to "stir the pot with conduct that is pervasive and includes illegal violent conduct," adding, "the lawlessness we've seen, your honor, is jaw-dropping."
Middlecamp argued the administration's message effectively required the state to "change its laws and policies" or else "suffer invasion of mass armed forces."
In addition to the letter, Minnesota's attorneys also highlighted President Trump's social media post from earlier this month in which he declared that "the day of reckoning & retribution" was coming in the state.
While Menendez was reportedly receptive to the state's arguments, she also expressed concern over whether she could restrict the operation without encroaching on the executive branch's authority to conduct constitutional immigration enforcement.
"You understand the federal government has a lot of power in this area, so I'm trying to figure out what principle you're asking me to apply that will sort out legal federal law enforcement from this 10th Amendment argument," Judge Menendez said to the state attorneys, per ABC News.
DOJ attorney Brantley Mayers reportedly described the state's request as "staggering," saying the court would essentially be "removing officers whom the president has concluded should be there to enforce federal immigration law."
In outlining her skepticism, Menendez pondered whether the proper answer to the "flood of illegality" was to "fight each illegal act" individually, as opposed to asking her to halt the whole operation. She reportedly stated that "not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction."
Despite the state's request, Menendez did not issue an order at the end of the hearing.
"I do not intend in any way for the depth of my analysis or whatever time I take to write to be seen as a belief that this is unimportant," she reportedly said. "It's because it's extremely important that I'm doing everything I can to get it right."
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments