A federal district court has issued a ruling preventing the Trump administration from arresting and detaining legal refugees residing in Minnesota. This decision comes in response to an aggressive immigration enforcement initiative targeting the state’s refugee population.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), embarked on a campaign to scrutinize the legal status of approximately 5,600 refugees within Minnesota, which is known as the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

In response to these actions, a group of refugees, using pseudonyms to protect their identities, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 18. They challenged the administration’s policy, seeking legal protection. Last week, their efforts gained further support from The Advocates for Human Rights, a nonprofit based in Minneapolis, which joined the lawsuit and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the government’s actions.

The bulk of the legal documents related to this case remain confidential. However, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, appointed by Bill Clinton, provided insights into the court’s stance with a detailed 32-page memorandum opinion and order issued on Wednesday. This order granted the refugees the TRO they sought.

In his opinion, Judge Tunheim emphasized the rights of refugees, stating, “They are not committing crimes on our streets, nor did they illegally cross the border. Refugees have a legal right to be in the United States, a right to work, a right to live peacefully — and importantly, a right not to be subjected to the terror of being arrested and detained without warrants or cause in their homes or on their way to religious services or to buy groceries.”

“They are not committing crimes on our streets, nor did they illegally cross the border,” the order reads. “Refugees have a legal right to be in the United States, a right to work, a right to live peacefully — and importantly, a right not to be subjected to the terror of being arrested and detained without warrants or cause in their homes or on their way to religious services or to buy groceries.”

In ruling against the government, the judge preliminarily accepted several of the plaintiffs” legal arguments — particularly the claim that “federal statutes governing refugees and immigrant detention do not permit prolonged detention of unadjusted refugees who have not been charged with any ground of removability.”

While the crux of the 53-page complaint is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Tunheim atypically relies on a claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to enjoin DHS and USCIS.

In the case, the Trump administration argued a section of the INA — 8 U.S.C. § 1159 — gives DHS the power to subject refugees to mandatory detention. The government cites language which provides that, after one year in the country, refugees who have not had their statuses adjusted must “return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and examination.”

To hear the court tell it, the decision is something of an easy call because the statute contains no such detention authority.

Rather, the court says, the “custody” language is simply — and only — about inspection and examination. And this process, the court notes, citing DHS guidance, should take roughly 48 hours.

“Because 8 U.S.C. § 1159 does not authorize prolonged detention of unadjusted refugees, and because the Named Plaintiffs, the putative Class, and the putative Detained Subclass are not subject to detention under [several other statutes], Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claim that Defendants lack lawful authority to detain them,” the order goes on. “Section 1159 permits the inspection and examination necessary to adjudicate refugees’ adjustment of status applications — nothing more.”

The court goes on to severely rubbish the government’s interpretation of the “custody” phrase, at length (emphasis in original):

[I]nterpreting the phrase “be returned to the custody” in § 1159(a) as mandating detention would lead to an illogical result. Because § 1159(a) makes refugees ineligible for adjustment until one year after entry, Defendants’ interpretation would subject USCIS conducted the inspection and examination precisely at the one-year mark. That outcome is nonsensical and would cause many unadjusted refugees to celebrate their one-year anniversary in this country in a jail cell.

Still, despite the lack of such authority, the complaint notes that several legal refugees have been detained under the new policy.

The court’s order offers relief to those detainees by directing DHS to immediately “return and release” all “those refugees who are presently detained under the policy” in Minnesota — and any refugees who were originally detained in the state but transported elsewhere.

The order also contains a series of tight compliance deadlines:

Within 7 days of this Order, Defendants shall file on the docket a status update concerning the status of the Detained Subclass members’ release.

Within 48 hours of this Order, Defendants shall produce and file under seal a list of individuals in detention that satisfy that definition of the putative Detained Subclass, as set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Order. The list must disclose the individuals’ identities and their location of detention.

“At its best, America serves as a haven of individual liberties in a world too often full of tyranny and cruelty,” Tunheim intones. “We abandon that ideal when we subject our neighbors to fear and chaos.”