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).
In a recent court session, a federal judge in Minnesota questioned whether the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies were also a covert attempt to coerce state and local officials into compliance. This inquiry arose amidst heightened tensions following the death of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and licensed gun owner, who was fatally shot from behind by federal agents in Minneapolis after being disarmed.
U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez led the hearing on Monday, expressing doubts about both the federal government’s justification for deploying thousands of federal troops to the city and her own jurisdiction to limit “Operation Metro Surge,” regardless of its underlying intentions.
Earlier this month, Minnesota initiated a lawsuit seeking an immediate temporary restraining order to halt the surge while the case is being reviewed. The state argued that the administration was infringing upon the 10th Amendment, which emphasizes federalism, by using federal intervention to impose President Trump’s political agenda on Minnesota.
During the proceedings, state attorneys urged the court to stop what they described as an “illegal and unchecked invasion” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents. This was reported by Kyle Cheney from Politico.
Lindsey Middlecamp, special counsel for Minnesota, asserted that federal agents were perpetuating extensive and unprecedented violence under the pretense of immigration enforcement. According to Middlecamp, the true objective was to undermine the state’s autonomy.
Middlecamp referred to a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Governor Tim Walz, which included demands such as rescinding sanctuary city policies, providing Medicaid and SNAP data, and allowing the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division access to 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.”
