Federal Immigration Enforcement and the Limits of Accountability: Lessons from Minnesota’s Operation Metro Surge

I. Identification of the Problem 

When Trump called for the end of the large-scale federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, it concluded as the largest Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation ever. Referred to as Operation Metro Surge, over 3,000 immigration officers flooded the streets of Minneapolis, arresting more than 4,000 undocumented immigrants spanning from December to February.[1] Local police officers handled over 50,000 calls for help, with the Minneapolis Police Department spending at least $5.2 million on police services.[2] Residents feared leaving their homes as chaos ran rampant throughout the streets. In the aftershock of Operation Metro Surge, local companies reported steep declines in revenues, with estimated weekly totals of up to $20 million.[3] This cost doesn’t even account for the damage done to Latino communities in the Twin Cities area, where one-third of Latino-owned businesses temporarily closed down.[4] The damage caused by the onslaught of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the area poses the question: Do large-scale ICE operations like Operation Metro Surge exceed constitutional limits on federal policing power? 

II. Federal Authority Over Immigration Enforcement 

Although the Constitution does not explicitly discuss immigration, legal precedent has given way to interpretation. Longstanding Supreme Court precedent recognizes that Congress has “plenary” power over immigration, meaning it has almost complete authority to decide the comings and goings of immigrants in the United States.[5] This precedent enables Congress to make laws concerning immigrants that would be otherwise unconstitutional for citizens.[6] In the wake of the attacks on 9/11, Congress has delegated immigration enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security, transferring functions from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Under the DHS, ICE was created in 2003 to uphold immigration laws within the U.S.[7][8] Since then, these federal agents have been guaranteed a number of powers. Immigration agents are legally allowed to stop a vehicle solely for the purposes of enforcing federal law. Similar to local police, agents must have reasonable suspicion that someone in the vehicle is actively committing a crime.[9] Race or ethnicity alone cannot be used to establish reasonable suspicion, so when performing a traffic stop, agents must be certain someone in the vehicle may lack legal status.[10] In regards to pedestrian stops, both ICE and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) may briefly question individuals about their immigration status, but can only make arrests if they again have “probable cause.” Federal agents can arrest individuals if they have a warrant signed by a federal judge, or in some cases, an “administrative warrant” issued by ICE.[11] Warrantless arrests are permitted only if agents have reasonable evidence to believe that the person in question is present in the U.S. without legal status and determine that the individual is likely to flee if not immediately arrested. 

III. Constitutional Limits on Enforcement 

There are, however, limitations on powers granted to federal agents. In the ruling of United States v. Brigoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court held that officers may not question occupants about their citizenship when the only ground for suspicion is that “the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry.”[12] As a result, federal agents must have reasonable suspicion that does not rely on racial profiling. The Court further clarified these limitations in Florida v. Royer, holding that a person maintains the right to walk away from official questioning if not otherwise detained.[13] These rulings reflect a broader constitutional principle: immigration enforcement must comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, individuals questioned by immigration officers are not required to answer questions regarding their citizenship or immigration status. 

IV. Are They Violating the Law? 

Despite these limitations on ICE enforcement, events in Minnesota suggest that they are not always followed in practice. Under the Trump Administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” residents report frequent vehicle stops and detentions, with some describing the federal presence as an “occupation.”[14] These federal agents’ blatant disregard for enforcement guidelines has resulted not only in poor authority but also high-speed chases and car crashes, further endangering the streets of Minneapolis.[15] At the height of the chaos, a federal judge ordered agents to halt traffic stops unless there was a specific reason to believe a driver was obstructing traffic, clarifying that safely following federal vehicles does not justify a traffic stop.[16] ICE agents are operating in unprecedented manners as implementing “quotas” on daily arrest numbers has never before been imposed.[17] Routine pedestrian stops have become a part of daily life, with agents appearing in workplace parking lots, attempting to ambush anyone who does not fit their perception of a U.S. citizen—white, heterosexual, and male. These agents are un-badged, armed, and frequently masked with heavy-duty military gear. Circulating footage from Minneapolis shows that agents often approach individuals aggressively, in an attempt to assert authority. The Trump Administration has also encouraged agents to handcuff suspected noncitizens and transport them for biometric status to “prove” their immigration status. This behavior has led to not only the arrests of peaceful noncitizens, but also U.S. citizens, despite the law prohibiting them from detaining confirmed citizens.[18] 

Instead of issuing an I-200 administrative requirement prior to enforcement operations, as required by the law, agencies have sent supervisors into the field so that they may sign one after the arrest.[19] Signing the I-200 post-arrest allows agents to justify a detention that already occurred. In practice, this undermines one of the primary procedural safeguards built into immigration enforcement. Under the Biden and Obama Administrations, warrantless immigration arrests of noncitizens occurred through “collateral arrests,” meaning agents would search for a person identified in advance but could also arrest others in the same location if they had cause to believe that they were violating immigration law. However, both of these previous administrations imposed restrictions on such arrests, while the Trump administration broadly permits them.[20] In fact, ICE director Todd Lyons actively directs supervisors “to forcibly enter into certain people’s homes without a judicial warrant, consent or emergency.”[21] 

V. What can be done? 

Democrats in Congress outlined proposed reforms in the wake of the fatal shootings of American citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, refusing to support long-term funding for DHS unless Republicans comply with said proposals. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and representative Hakeem Jeffries, stated: “The American people rightfully expect their elected representatives to take action to rein in ICE and ensure no more lives lost.”[22] Some of these demands include prohibiting agents from wearing masks, requiring agents to present a badge, halting racial profiling, and installing body cameras, among seven other proposed demands that attempt to prevent the overstepping of ICE. 

So, what can citizens and noncitizens continue to expect from ICE? According to Republican Senator Rand Paul, “they [ICE] must admit their mistakes…and pledge to reform.”[23] Similar statements echo the outlash from the events that unfolded in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge. Local leaders and prosecutors have since examined numerous incidents linked to the operation, including the allegations of excessive force and usage of chemical agents.[24] Yet, despite the pushback and withdrawal of many ICE agents from Minnesota, the Trump Administration pledges to expand ICE authority to detain refugees, signaling that DHS does not plan on slowing down ICE operations in the near future.[25]

Operation Metro Surge is an exemplary case of federal overreach under the Trump Administration. Even though Congress has granted immigration enforcement agencies certain direct power, Supreme Court precedent and the Fourth Amendment place clear limits on both ICE and CBP. The permanent damage and change done to communities in Minnesota are evidence that these large-scale enforcement operations greatly increase the risk of exceeding legal limits. Citizens urgently need lawmakers to establish stronger oversight and clear legal safeguards to ensure that immigration operations do not come at the expense of constitutional rights and the safety of local communities. 

[1] CNN, “ICE Presence in Minneapolis–St. Paul,” CNN, January 2026

[2] Morrell, Lydia. “What Was the Outcome of Operation Metro Surge? Minneapolis Police Tallies Car Crashes, Financial Costs.” KARE 11. March 3, 2026

[3] Aleaziz, Hamed, and Lydia DePillis. “Immigration Crackdown Is Hurting Minnesota’s Economy.” The New York Times, February 2, 2026

[4] “‘These Are People’s Livelihoods’: Minnesota’s Economy in Crisis amid ICE Surge,” The Guardian, February 10, 2026

[5] Implied Power of Congress Over Immigration: Overview,” Legal Information Institute, last modified accessed March 5, 2026

[6] Ibid.

[7] “Creation of the Department of Homeland Security,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, last modified May 8, 2023

[8]  U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Creation of the Department of Homeland Security.” 9 8 U.S.C. § 1357, “Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees,” U.S. Code

[9] 8 U.S.C. § 1357, “Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees,” U.S. Code

[10] American Immigration Council, “How ICE Went Rogue: A Brief Analysis of the Legal Authorities Governing ICE and CBP Operations—and How They’re Being Undermined and Violated by Policy and Practice,” February 2026

[11] Ibid.

[12] United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

[13] Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)

[14] “Abandoned Cars, Long Days and No Clear End for Minneapolis Journalists Covering ‘Outsized’ Immigration Enforcement,” Poynter Institute, February 2, 2026

[15] American Immigration Council, “How ICE Went Rogue.”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Joanna Walters, “Trump Administration Sets Quota to Arrest 3,000 People a Day in Anti-Immigration Agenda,” The Guardian, May 29, 2025

[18] American Immigration Council, “How ICE Went Rogue.”

[19] Ibid

[20] Ibid

[21] Exhibit 1, Memorandum from Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons on Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal (May 12, 2025)

[22] Chris Stein, “Democrats’ 10 Demands to ‘Rein In’ ICE – the Full List of Proposed Reforms,” The Guardian, February 5, 2026

[23] Transcript: NPR News Segment,” NPR, accessed March 6, 2026

[24] Peter Weber, “Minneapolis Investigates Bovino, ICE Immigration Agents,” The Week, March 3, 2026

[25] Ted Hesson and Devika Madhusudhanan Nair, “Trump Administration Expands ICE Authority to Detain Refugees,” Reuters, February 19, 2026