By Ginika Igboke
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a Trump administration policy aimed at reconsidering the legal status of roughly 5,600 lawfully admitted refugees living in Minnesota.
In a court order, Minneapolis-based U.S. District Judge John Tunheim granted a temporary restraining order in response to a class action request challenging a Department of Homeland Security initiative known as “Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening,” or “Operation PARRIS.”
DHS announced the operation earlier this month, describing it as a broad effort to reexamine thousands of refugee cases through new background checks. Under federal law, refugees who are lawfully admitted to the United States must later complete an additional process to obtain lawful permanent resident status. According to the court order, the DHS initiative targets refugees who have not yet completed that process.
The lawsuit was brought by five unnamed individuals, joined by the advocacy group The Advocates for Human Rights. The plaintiffs allege that DHS, as part of the operation, implemented a practice of arresting and detaining refugees—without notice or warrants—despite their prior screening and lawful admission into the country.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem were named as respondents, along with other DHS officials.
In his initial ruling, Tunheim questioned the legality of the administration’s approach, noting that refugees undergo extensive vetting by multiple federal agencies before entering the United States. He also cited statutory limits on the government’s authority to arrest or deport refugees who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.
The temporary restraining order grants two key requests from the plaintiffs. First, it bars the federal government from arresting or detaining any non–lawful permanent resident refugees in Minnesota solely because they have not yet adjusted their status. Second, it orders the immediate release of refugees currently detained under the policy.
Tunheim said the order will remain in effect while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
Reacting to the ruling, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller wrote on X, “The judicial sabotage of democracy is unending.”
In the court order, Tunheim described the policy as a sharp departure from prior practice, writing that it replaced established agency policy with “abrupt arrest and detention—often without a warrant or notice—of individuals who have been admitted to the United States as refugees.”
He pointed to federal statutes that restrict the government’s authority to initiate removal proceedings against individuals who have already been admitted as refugees or lawful permanent residents. Under the law, standards of “inadmissibility” generally cannot be applied after admission unless the individual was ineligible at the time of entry. Instead, DHS must rely on specific “deportability” criteria set out in statute.
“ICE’s longstanding agency guidance has been that failure to obtain [lawful permanent resident] status, by itself, is not grounds for removal nor is it a proper basis for detaining them,” Tunheim wrote.
The judge noted that the ruling is temporary and could be modified or narrowed as the case proceeds. If the court ultimately rules against the administration, the government could appeal to a higher court.
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
Original article
Comments