A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain numerous immigrants in Minnesota who have entered the U.S. but are still awaiting “lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.” This decision mandates the immediate release of those already in detention.

Senior U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim issued a 20-page order on Monday, highlighting that individuals in this situation should not be held. The ruling is part of a broader challenge to the administration’s immigration policies.

Judge Tunheim’s order traces the situation back to January 9, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) launched Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening, known as Operation PARRIS. This initiative was described as a “fraud investigation,” aiming to reassess “thousands of refugee cases” through updated background checks and rigorous verification processes, with the involvement of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The judge noted that the DHS initiated warrantless arrests and detentions of refugees who had been in the U.S. for over a year but were still waiting for their LPR status to be adjudicated. This one-year period was intended as a “check-in,” not a justification for detention.

In response, several refugees filed a class-action lawsuit against what they called the “Refugee Detention Policy” implemented by DHS. They also sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the policy.

Judge Tunheim granted temporary relief on January 28, 2026, to a proposed “Class” defined as “all individuals with refugee status residing in Minnesota who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status and have not been charged with any grounds for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” This decision underscores the ongoing legal battles over immigration policies in the U.S.

He also, at the time, barred the Trump administration “from arresting and detaining any member of the Class on the basis that they are a refugee who has not been adjusted to lawful permanent resident status” and ordered that all relevant refugees “who are or will be detained by DHS pursuant to the Refugee Detention Policy” be released.

After the TRO was extended until Feb. 25, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other federal officials moved to have it thrown out, or at the very least, paused pending appeal. In both circumstances, DHS and USCIS would have been allowed to carry on with their detention goals.

It is this request for a dissolution of the TRO that Tunheim was responding to on Monday.

The Trump administration argued that under the “adjustment of status of refugees” statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — which states that someone “who has not acquired permanent resident status, shall, at the end of such year period, return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination for admission” — the word “custody” requires detention.

The federal judge found this argument unpersuasive for several reasons.

The statute “states that refugees will be ‘returned’ to DHS’s custody,” he writes. “If ‘custody’ implies detention, then the word ‘return’ would imply that refugees were detained upon their arrival in the country. They were not.”

He then points to the federal government’s own “previous interpretations” of the statute, albeit under different administrations, saying these interpretations “support the conclusion that the term ‘custody’ does not contemplate arrest and detention of unadjusted refugees.”

“Moreover, current federal regulations do not contemplate the arrest or detention of adjusted refugees, as the regulation governing the adjustment of status makes no reference to arrest or detention,” he goes on. “Yet, Defendants go so far to say that [the statute] ‘mandates temporary detention.’ Accepting that assertion would require the Court to conclude that the executive branch has been violating [the statute’s] purported detention mandate since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed because it has failed to arrest and detain adjusted refugees for the past 45 years. The Court declines to do so.”

The judge also states that were the court to accept the administration’s interpretation of the refugee-status-adjustment statute, “it would suggest that DHS had the right to detain adjusted refugees indefinitely, because the statute imposes no time limits on when the required inspection and examination must occur.” Because of this, “the Court maintains that ‘custody’ is best read to mean ‘responsibility’ or ‘control,’ rather than prolonged detention.”

The administration also tried to suggest under a different, “discretionary detention” part of the statute, that these refugees were “applicants for admission” and could thus be detained. Once again, the judge was unconvinced.

“After thorough vetting and verification of refugee status, refugees are conditionally admitted when they enter the country, so they cannot be considered applicants for admission,” the judge wrote.

Tunheim also shot down the administration’s claim that the TRO was too broad.

“The TRO does not categorically bar the arrest of refugees; it bars arrest solely on the basis that a refugee has not yet had their status adjusted to LPR status,” he wrote. “The TRO likewise does not preclude Defendants from inspecting and examining unadjusted refugees by issuing a notice that requires them to appear for an interview.”

He added in his conclusion that “[i]t remains important to note that this case involves only the adjustment of status of refugees who reside in Minnesota,” before he synthesized his ruling, at length.

Refugees are thoroughly vetted and examined before admission to the United States and once admitted, they are provided assistance to assimilate in communities across the country. The one-year check-in is just that—an inspection. There is no requirement that refugees be re-vetted. And it appears to the Court that unadjusted refugees have no incentive to avoid inspection, as completing the check-in is a prerequisite to obtaining lawful permanent resident status. Mandatory detention, in addition to being practically impossible given the number of refugees awaiting inspection and adjustment, seems clearly to be a solution in search of a problem. The swift reinterpretation of long held and consistently understood applications of the law raises serious constitutional questions that must be addressed by this Court.

The judge ordered the administration to “produce and file under seal within 3 days all documents cited or relied on in Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order,” and the federal officials must also give a status update by 5 p.m. on Wednesday regarding “the return and release” of the relevant refugees.