US Attorney's Office urges court to deny MN's order pausing ICE surge

MINNEAPOLIS — In documents filed Wednesday, federal attorneys urge a judge to deny Minnesota’s restraining order pausing “Operation Metro Surge."

On Monday, Jan. 26, federal district court Judge Kate Menendez heard arguments from attorneys representing Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul.

They claim that Operation Metro Surge has violated the state’s Tenth Amendment rights under the anti-commandeering doctrine.

The state’s attorneys argued the surge is a pressure campaign to end the Twin Cities’ sanctuary policies and to hand over the data requested in Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letter to Gov. Tim Walz.

In an order dated Monday, Menendez charged the federal government to respond to the state’s claims that assert “the purpose of Operation Metro Surge is to punish the plaintiffs for adopting sanctuary laws and policies.”

In documents opposing the restraining order, federal attorneys argue that the executive branch, under which DHS operates, has the “conclusive and preclusive” authority to enforce federal law in Minnesota.

“The when, where and how much of federal law enforcement are reserved exclusively to the Executive and are not subject to review by the States,” submitted Brent Shumate, an assistant attorney in the U.S. Attorney General’s civil division.

The response alleges that Bondi’s letter was not an attempt at coercion, but an attempt to find “common ground.”

“There is no hint of a quid pro quo in the Attorney General’s letter; she does not offer plaintiffs a trade or commit to end Operation Metro Surge under any circumstances," Shumate stated.

“Instead, citing the adverse ‘consequences’ of certain policy choices for the people of Minnesota, the letter attempts to find common ground on three different issues, only one of which has any connection to this case.”

Shumate also noted that no court has ever applied cases of the anti-commandeering doctrine to the executive branch, only to Congress exceeding its power under the spending clause.

“This court should not indulge the plaintiffs’ attempt to import its framework into a case challenging the executive’s facially valid enforcement of federal law,” Schumate stated.

Judge Menendez has yet to rule on the case as of Thursday afternoon.