A federal court has stepped in to halt a Trump administration initiative aimed at thousands of refugees living in Minnesota while they wait for permanent residency.
The order, issued in Minneapolis, puts an immediate pause on arrests of lawful refugees who have not been accused of immigration violations. The judge said the enforcement push appeared to run afoul of several federal protections, particularly where individuals were detained and subjected to extra scrutiny without warrants or clear cause.
In a sharply worded ruling, the court underscored the broader stakes, noting that the United States’ claim to be a refuge for people fleeing persecution rings hollow when legally admitted residents are thrust into fear and uncertainty. The judge said the temporary block would remain in place until further arguments are heard in a challenge brought by civil rights advocates.
The policy setback lands amid a large-scale federal presence in Minneapolis and Saint Paul that began in December. Officials described the deployment as a necessary effort to enforce immigration rules and combat fraud. Critics, however, say the operation swept up refugees who had already undergone extensive screening and were complying with the law.
The ruling delivers an early blow to “Operation PARRIS,” a Department of Homeland Security program unveiled this month as a broad review of refugee cases using new background checks. The court made clear that the order does not prevent authorities from reviewing applications or carrying out lawful enforcement actions—but it does bar arrests without proper justification.
Administration officials swiftly denounced the decision, accusing the judiciary of obstructing the president’s immigration agenda. Advocates for refugees welcomed the move, calling it a crucial check on overreach and a measure that restores basic safeguards for families who believed they were rebuilding their lives within the rules.
For now, the court’s intervention offers a measure of relief to thousands of refugees in Minnesota, while the wider legal battle over the policy moves to its next stage.
