BY MIRABEL ODETA
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily halted a newly announced Trump administration policy aimed at thousands of lawful refugees in Minnesota who are in the process of obtaining permanent residency, delivering an early legal setback to one of the administration’s latest immigration initiatives.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim of Minneapolis said federal authorities likely violated multiple federal laws by arresting some refugees solely to subject them to additional background vetting, despite their lawful status in the United States. The policy affects roughly 5,600 refugees in Minnesota who have already been admitted to the country and are awaiting approval of their green card applications.
“At its best, America serves as a haven of individual liberties in a world too often full of tyranny and cruelty,” Tunheim wrote. “We abandon that ideal when we subject our neighbors to fear and chaos.” He added that the refugees targeted by the policy are legally present and entitled to basic constitutional protections.
Tunheim issued a temporary restraining order barring federal agents from arresting lawful refugees in Minnesota who have not been charged with immigration violations. The order will remain in effect while the court considers additional legal arguments brought by civil rights and refugee advocacy groups challenging the administration’s actions.
The ruling stems from an intensified federal immigration operation launched in Minneapolis and Saint Paul beginning in December, when the Trump administration deployed thousands of immigration enforcement agents to the region. Officials said the operation was intended to enforce immigration laws and combat fraud, but advocacy groups argued that lawful refugees were being swept up without warrants or individualized suspicion.
The court’s decision represents a significant obstacle for “Operation PARRIS,” a Department of Homeland Security program announced earlier this month and described by officials as a broad effort to reexamine thousands of refugee cases through new background checks. Critics of the program contend that it has been used as a pretext for arrests and detentions that exceed DHS’s legal authority.
Tunheim emphasized that his order does not prevent DHS from lawfully reviewing refugee applications or conducting background checks. He noted, however, that the agency must comply with existing laws and constitutional safeguards, stating that the order “does not impact DHS’s lawful enforcement of immigration laws.”
The judge also stressed that the refugees affected by his ruling are individuals who have already undergone extensive screening before being admitted to the United States and should not be subjected to arrest and detention without warrants or probable cause. “They have a right not to be subjected to the terror of being arrested and detained without cause,” Tunheim wrote.
The ruling drew swift criticism from the White House. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, condemned the decision in a post on X, calling it an example of what he described as judicial interference with executive authority.
Advocates welcomed the court’s intervention. Kimberly Grano, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, which is involved in the lawsuit, said the order establishes “desperately needed guardrails” on federal agents and provides immediate relief to refugees who had been living in fear of sudden arrest despite their lawful status.
Further hearings are expected in the coming weeks as the court considers whether to extend the restraining order or issue a longer-term injunction against the policy.
Original article
Comments