A federal judge in Minnesota acknowledged that immigration agents likely conducted stops based on race or ethnicity without reasonable suspicion during Operation Metro Surge, but he refused to grant the injunction that would have halted the enforcement practices.
The bottom line: the operation continues, the legal challenge falls short of its goal, and the ACLU walks away with a moral victory it cannot actually enforce.
U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud issued a 111-page order examining dozens of encounters between federal immigration officers and individuals in the Twin Cities. As reported by Just The News, Tostrud found at least 23 instances where people were stopped without "reasonable, articulable suspicion" and called the evidence "compelling and troubling." He went further, writing that the plaintiffs had made their case on the merits:
"I conclude that Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that Defendants have adopted a policy authorizing federal immigration officers to conduct investigatory stops based on ethnicity or race without reasonable suspicion that the individuals were violating immigration laws."
Strong language. And yet, when it came time to act on that language, Judge Tostrud declined. He denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, the actual remedy they sought.
The legal standard for a preliminary injunction requires more than proving the government likely did something wrong. Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely to occur in the immediate future without court intervention. That's the bar the ACLU's case couldn't clear.
Judge Tostrud was direct about why. Operation Metro Surge had already begun winding down in February. At its peak, more than 3,000 federal immigration officers and agents were detailed to the Saint Paul Field Office. By February 23, 2026, that number had dropped below 1,000. Federal officials announced agents would be reassigned or returned to their regular duty stations.
The judge noted that none of the plaintiffs or declarants had been stopped or arrested a second time. He called a preliminary injunction an "extraordinary remedy" and concluded plainly:
"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."
In other words, the operation that prompted the lawsuit was already ending on its own. The court saw no reason to intervene against something that was winding itself down.
The ACLU of Minnesota, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of three individuals, framed the outcome as a win. In a statement provided to the Star Tribune, the organization said:
"After hearing the brave testimony of Minnesotans who were racially profiled by federal immigration agents, the court found that our clients made a clear showing that the agents were following an unlawful policy to stop and arrest Minnesotans in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights."
That's a selective reading. The court did find the evidence persuasive on the constitutional question. But finding something "likely" unconstitutional and actually stopping it are two very different outcomes. The ACLU asked the court to block enforcement. The court said no.
This is a pattern worth recognizing. Civil liberties organizations routinely extract favorable dicta from rulings they functionally lose, then broadcast those fragments as if they won the case. The headline writes itself for sympathetic outlets. The operational reality stays the same.
While the legal challenge focused on individual encounters, the broader operation had a concrete purpose. Federal officials said more than 4,000 people living in the U.S. illegally were apprehended during Operation Metro Surge. The operation also targeted individuals accused of murder, sexual offenses, and gang-related crimes.
DHS, for its part, declined to disclose the number of personnel deployed, citing operational security reasons.
These numbers matter because they represent the other side of the ledger that groups like the ACLU prefer not to discuss. Every enforcement operation carries some risk of procedural error. That's true of every police department, every federal agency, every institution that exercises coercive authority. The question isn't whether mistakes happen. It's whether the mission itself is legitimate and whether the errors are systemic or correctable.
Judge Tostrud's order suggests some practices during the operation crossed constitutional lines. That's worth taking seriously. Constitutional rights apply to citizens and legal residents regardless of where an enforcement operation is directed. The case of Mubashir Hussen, a 20-year-old Somali American and U.S. citizen who testified that he was detained in December in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood while attempting to tell agents he was an American citizen, illustrates the real human cost when enforcement is sloppy.
There is a difference between opposing immigration enforcement and demanding that it be conducted lawfully. The left consistently conflates the two. For progressive organizations, every enforcement action is inherently suspect, every detention is a civil rights crisis, and every operation is an excuse to delegitimize the entire concept of border security and interior enforcement.
Conservatives can hold two things simultaneously: immigration law must be enforced, and federal agents must follow the Fourth Amendment while doing it. Those positions aren't in tension. They're complementary. An enforcement apparatus that respects constitutional limits is more durable, more defensible, and more effective in the long run than one that cuts corners.
The ACLU doesn't want better enforcement. It wants no enforcement. That's why it frames every ruling, even one it lost on the remedy, as proof that the entire enterprise is illegitimate. Don't confuse their agenda with a principled concern for civil liberties.
The denial of the injunction means enforcement operations in Minnesota face no immediate judicial restraint. The underlying case may still proceed, and Judge Tostrud's findings on the constitutional merits could shape future litigation. But for now, the practical outcome is clear: the government retains its authority to enforce immigration law in the Twin Cities.
Operation Metro Surge wound down on its own timeline, not the court's. Over 4,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended. The agents are returning to their regular posts. And a 111-page order full of sharp language produced exactly zero operational restrictions.