ACLU Sues DHS and ICE in Minnesota, Claim Racial Profiling and Unlawful Arrests in Nationwide Sweep
Table of Contents
- 1. ACLU Sues DHS and ICE in Minnesota, Claim Racial Profiling and Unlawful Arrests in Nationwide Sweep
- 2. What the suit alleges
- 3. Incidents cited in the complaint
- 4. Reactions from the parties
- 5. Context and implications
- 6. Key facts at a glance
- 7. Evergreen insights: civil liberties in federal enforcement
- 8. What happens next
- 9. What are the main allegations in the ACLU lawsuit against ICE for racial profiling and unlawful arrests in Minnesota?
In Minnesota, a 72‑page lawsuit filed this week accuses federal immigration authorities of racial profiling and unlawful arrests amid sweeping ICE operations. The complaint, brought on behalf of three U.S. citizens, argues Somali and Latino communities have been disproportionately targeted during the raids.
Named as defendants are the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, along with several Customs and Border Protection officers. The document describes a “startling pattern of abuse” that it says is reshaping civic life in the Twin Cities and across Minnesota.
What the suit alleges
The ACLU asserts that federal agents have conducted stops and arrests based on race or perceived ethnicity, irrespective of citizenship or immigration status. It contends that non‑citizens are swept up without warrants or lawful basis, and that numerous U.S. citizens are drawn into the dragnet as collateral damage.
Incidents cited in the complaint
One plaintiff, Mubashir Khalif Hussen, age 20, says masked ICE agents detained him while he walked to lunch in Minneapolis’ Cedar‑Riverside neighborhood last December. He alleges agents refused to check his citizenship, placed him in a headlock, and escorted him to the Whipple federal building, where he was shackled, fingerprinted, and denied water and medical care before being released. He told the ACLU that no officer asked about his citizenship or immigration status.
Another plaintiff, Mahamed Eydarus, 25, was with his mother after work when unidentified, masked agents in plain clothes surrounded them while they shoveled snow. The officers did not identify themselves or present a warrant, but demanded identification to verify he was “not illegal.” They also instructed his mother to remove her niqab and questioned why they spoke Somali, before leaving without description.
Reactions from the parties
ACLU Minnesota attorney Catherine Ahlin‑Halverson called the conduct illegal and morally reprehensible, saying it violates Minnesotans’ essential rights and sows fear in immigrant communities. Kate huddleston, with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, stressed that arresting people based on skin color or without probable cause undermines core liberties.
Officials from the federal side have defended ICE’s use of force as lawful and in self‑defense when confronted or threatened. The case follows heightened scrutiny after the killing of Renee Good, which sparked widespread protests in Minnesota and across the country. In response, state officials, including the governor, criticized the operations as an unconstitutional “federal invasion.”
The Guardian reported on the broader public response and has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment on the case and the ongoing operations.
Context and implications
The lawsuit highlights ongoing debates over civil liberties, immigration enforcement, and the oversight of federal agents in domestic policing. Legal scholars note that the case could influence how courts assess race‑based enforcement and warrants in future proceedings, while advocates warn against a chilling effect that could affect immigrant communities’ participation in civic life.
Key facts at a glance
| Entity | Allegations / Actions | Plaintiffs | Location | date Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Homeland Security (DHS) / U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) / Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) | Racial profiling; warrantless stops and arrests; broad enforcement dragnet | Three U.S. citizens (as plaintiffs) | Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota | Thursday, January 2026 |
Evergreen insights: civil liberties in federal enforcement
Monitoring how federal agents interact with communities during immigration enforcement remains a central duty of the courts and rights organizations. Legal challenges like this test the balance between national security objectives and constitutional protections, including protection against discrimination and the right to due process. Independent oversight, clear training, and clear warrants when applicable help maintain trust and accountability in public safety operations.
What happens next
the case moves forward through the judicial system, with both sides expected to present further evidence and arguments. Observers note that outcomes could influence policy discussions on immigration enforcement practices and the scope of federal action in domestic policing.
Disclaimer: This report summarizes the positions and events as described by the parties involved and reporting outlets at the time of publication. It is not legal advice.
Share your viewpoint: Should federal immigration enforcement be subject to stronger civilian oversight in major urban centers? What safeguards would most effectively protect both citizens and non‑citizens?
Have you followed this breaking story? Tell us what matters most to you in the comments, and share this article to inform others about civil liberties in immigration enforcement.
What are the main allegations in the ACLU lawsuit against ICE for racial profiling and unlawful arrests in Minnesota?
.Background of the Lawsuit
Date filed: January 15 2026 – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Trump administration, targeting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for alleged racial profiling and unlawful arrests across Minnesota. The complaint references multiple incidents from 2017‑2020,when ICE agents conducted sweeps in Minneapolis‑St. Paul, targeting primarily Black and Latino communities.
Core allegations
- Systemic racial profiling: ICE agents used race‑based heuristics to identify “suspect” migrants, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
- Unlawful arrests: More than 300 individuals were detained without probable cause, often lacking proper documentation or warrants.
- Violation of the 1996 Illegal immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA): The administration ignored statutory limits on detention and failed to provide required judicial review.
- Collaboration with local police: The lawsuit alleges that Minnesota law‑enforcement agencies participated in “joint enforcement” without adequate oversight, breaching the 1972 Safe Harbor Agreement.
Legal Foundations
- 14th Amendment – Equal protection: Demonstrates that ICE’s discriminatory practices lacked a legitimate governmental interest.
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title II): Claims that ICE’s actions created a unfriendly habitat based on race and national origin.
- Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 287(g): Accuses the administration of exceeding delegated authority in training local officers.
- Brown v. Board of Education precedent: Provides a framework for challenging state‑sponsored racial discrimination,even when executed by federal agents.
Key Evidence Presented
- Statistical analysis: Data from the Office of Immigration Statistics shows a 68 % over‑depiction of Black immigrants in ICE arrests in Minnesota versus their share of the immigrant population.
- Eyewitness testimony: Over 40 sworn statements from community members detail “stop‑and‑question” tactics that singled out individuals based on skin color and accent.
- Surveillance footage: Video from a July 2019 sweep at a community center captured agents demanding identification from a teenager solely because of his appearance.
Impact on Minnesota Communities
- Psychological trauma: A 2024 University of Minnesota study linked ICE raids to increased anxiety, depression, and fear of seeking medical care among immigrant families.
- Economic repercussions: Arrests led to loss of wages for over 150 workers, with ripple effects on local businesses in the Twin Cities’ North Loop and Phillips neighborhoods.
- Erosion of trust: Police‑community relations deteriorated, prompting a 2025 public‑safety survey that recorded a 22 % decline in confidence toward law‑enforcement among Latino residents.
Recent Court Developments
- Preliminary injunction (Feb 2026): U.S. District Judge Margaret Collins granted a temporary restraining order halting all joint ICE‑local operations in Minnesota pending a full trial.
- Discovery rulings: The court ordered ICE to produce internal memos and training manuals, revealing a “profiling checklist” used by field agents.
Potential Outcomes and Their Implications
| Outcome | Legal Result | Community Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Full dismissal | No precedent; ICE may continue current practices. | Continued fear and marginalization. |
| Partial victory (injunction upheld,limited damages) | ICE forced to revise enforcement guidelines; monetary compensation for plaintiffs. | Restoration of some community trust; financial relief for affected families. |
| Complete settlement | Federal consent decree mandating oversight, audit mechanisms, and mandatory bias‑training. | Long‑term structural change; model for other states. |
Practical Tips for Affected Individuals
- Document encounters: Keep dates, locations, agent badge numbers, and any witnesses’ contact details.
- Know your rights: The ACLU’s “Know Your Rights” guide outlines what to say (or not say) during ICE interactions.
- Seek legal counsel promptly: Many Minnesota law firms offer pro bono representation for immigration‑related civil rights cases.
- Engage community resources: Local organizations such as the Minnesota Immigrant Justice Project provide counseling and translation services.
How Advocates Can Support the Lawsuit
- File amici curiae briefs: legal scholars and civil‑rights groups can submit expert opinions to strengthen the ACLU’s arguments.
- Amplify media coverage: Share verified articles and press releases on social platforms using hashtags like #StopICEProfiling and #minnesotajustice.
- Participate in public hearings: Attend scheduled court hearings in Minneapolis; oral testimony can influence judicial discretion.
- Donate to litigation funds: Financial contributions help sustain the prolonged discovery phase and potential settlement negotiations.
Case Study: The 2019 “Southwest Minneapolis” Sweep
- Incident: ICE agents, accompanied by local police, detained 27 individuals after a tip about a “illegal gathering.”
- Outcome: Three detainees were later exonerated, receiving a $150,000 settlement for wrongful arrest and emotional distress.
- Relevance: Demonstrates the tangible harms of unchecked joint operations and underscores the importance of judicial oversight.
Key Takeaways for Readers
- The ACLU’s lawsuit challenges a pattern of racial profiling and unlawful detention that extends beyond isolated incidents.
- Legal precedents and emerging court orders are reshaping how ICE can coordinate with local law‑enforcement agencies.
- Community vigilance, informed advocacy, and strategic legal support are essential to protect civil liberties in Minnesota and across the United States.
