ICE in Minnesota: Judge finds federal agents likely engaged in ‘unconstitutional’ immigration enforcement

ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - While a federal judge found Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "likely maintained unconstitutional policies" of race-based immigration enforcement and warrantless arrests, he denied a request to block federal agents from carrying out the continued practices in Minnesota.

ICE agents likely engaged in ‘unconstitutional’ immigration enforcement

The backstory:

The ACLU and several individuals detained by ICE filed a lawsuit to stop the arrests and what they described as racial profiling by immigration agents in Minnesota. They filed the suit in U.S. District Court, arguing that the "suspicion-less arrests" violated their constitutional rights.

As part of the case, several immigrants, including Mubashir Hussen and other American citizens testified under oath about their experiences during a hearing in St. Paul. They told U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud they believe they were singled out by immigration authorities because of their race, ethnicity, or use of a foreign language.

The judge's ruling:

In his 111-page written order, Tostrud acknowledged that the plaintiffs made a "clear showing" that ICE officers likely maintained unconstitutional policies.

Tostrud wrote, "defendants adopted a policy authorizing federal immigration officers to conduct investigatory stops based on ethnicity or race without reasonable suspicion that the individuals were violating immigration laws."

However, he ruled that under federal law, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a high likelihood of future injury or impact – in this case, meaning additional encounters with immigration enforcement agents. The judge concluded they failed to meet that standard in part because of ICE’s recent drawdown of operations in Minnesota.

"No Plaintiff or declarant has been unlawfully stopped or arrested a second time," Judge Tostrud wrote. "In a field of 33 total witnesses, the lack of a subsequent encounter makes it less likely that future violations are certainly impending."

The full ruling can be read below: