U.S. Judge Orders Halt to Minnesota ICE Detentions After Refugees Allege Wrongful Arrests

A concentrated enforcement campaign in Minneapolis that targeted recently arrived refugees has prompted judicial intervention and opened a broader civic and legal backlash. Legal advocates filed a class-action lawsuit saying more than 100 refugees — many with no criminal records — were arrested amid a Department of Homeland Security audit of refugee files for suspected fraud; a federal judge ordered the detainees released and temporarily barred further detentions while the litigation proceeds. Detainees and their attorneys described abrupt early-morning arrests, prolonged questioning, transfers to a Texas facility and, in some cases, being released far from resettlement supports without medication or other necessities. The enforcement followed a DHS directive to review thousands of refugee cases, a measure critics contend is being implemented with sweeping reliance on an obscure statutory detention authority rather than targeted evidence of fraud. The operation has spilled into the public sphere: local reporting and community actors say a woman died during an encounter related to the enforcement, an event that crystallized neighborhood outrage and helped trigger large-scale protests, confrontations with officers and the use of crowd-control measures. Grassroots responses — including accompaniment programs, volunteer transportation, rapid fundraising for legal and medical needs, and organized protection at schools and daycares — have proliferated as residents and advocates seek to shield newcomers and fill gaps in services. Minnesota officials and federal investigators are reported to be entangled over access to evidence after federal agencies assumed investigative control, and state-level legal filings have been lodged in attempts to constrain the enforcement sweep. The unfolding episode has disrupted daily life for affected neighborhoods: businesses closed or limited hours, workers avoided public spaces, and schools managed heightened anxiety among children. Judges reviewing the federal suit have expressed skepticism about the breadth of detention authority being applied, and the temporary restraining order creates immediate relief for those ordered freed. If the courts ultimately curtail the enforcement tactic, the litigation could narrow DHS and ICE’s use of detention statutes in audits of pending applications; if the government prevails, similar operations could spread to other jurisdictions. For now, the blended legal and civic reaction underscores both the human cost of aggressive fraud reviews and the political pressures to justify heavy-handed field tactics, while community trust with federal and local institutions remains frayed.