Federal judge blocks Trump administration arrests of Minnesota refugees

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis issued a temporary restraining order on Jan. 28, 2026, blocking federal agents from arresting or detaining lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota solely because they have not yet obtained permanent resident status. Tunheim found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and required the immediate release of refugees detained under the state status review, as well as the release or return within five days of those taken to Texas, according to filings by plaintiff organizations.

The order specifically bars arrests or detentions of refugees in Minnesota who have not been charged with immigration violations and makes clear it does not prevent the Department of Homeland Security from reexamining refugee applicants or pursuing lawful enforcement of immigration laws. Rather, Tunheim wrote, the order prohibits arrest-and-detention tactics targeted at refugees who are lawfully present but awaiting green cards. He framed the ruling in constitutional terms, writing, “At its best, America serves as a haven of individual liberties in a world too often full of tyranny and cruelty. We abandon that ideal when we subject our neighbours to fear and chaos.”

The rule addresses enforcement tied to a DHS initiative known as Operation PARRIS, which the department described as a sweeping program reexamining thousands of refugee cases through new background checks. Plaintiffs and advocates say the operation targeted roughly 5,600 lawful refugees in Minnesota who are awaiting green cards. The class-action lawsuit is led by refugee groups represented by the International Refugee Assistance Project, Berger Montague, and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, with the Advocates for Human Rights participating as an organizational plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that armed immigration agents carried out door-to-door arrests across the Twin Cities beginning in December, detaining people including children and the elderly and transporting many to facilities in Texas. Plaintiffs say some detainees endured intense questioning, were held for over a week, were moved between facilities in shackles, and were released in Texas without money, identification, or means to return home. The litigation contends those tactics were intended to trigger mass terminations of refugee status and to render resettled individuals vulnerable to deportation.

Tunheim also addressed a statutory provision the government invoked that it says requires refugees to submit to inspection after one year of U.S. residency. The judge concluded that the government’s expansive reading could permit prolonged detention at the one-year mark, and he found that interpretation lacked statutory backing as applied to extended detention.

The TRO preserves the status quo while the court considers further briefing on a preliminary injunction. The order drew immediate criticism from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who posted on X, “The judicial sabotage of democracy is unending.”

Beyond the immediate legal relief, the ruling carries broader policy implications. It constrains the administration’s use of aggressive arrest-and-detention tactics against lawfully present refugees and may influence how DHS designs follow-up screenings and enforcement operations nationwide. For Minnesota, the injunction offers relief to an estimated 5,600 refugees whose ability to work, access services, and contribute to local economies has been disrupted by the enforcement campaign and the community fear it generated. The case also joins a series of national court challenges that are testing the limits of immigration enforcement practices and statutory interpretation around refugee inspections and detention.