A federal judge has extended protections for thousands of legally admitted refugees in Minnesota, blocking federal authorities from arresting or deporting them under a Trump administration policy to reevaluate their status.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim changed a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction on Friday. He determined that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) approach misinterprets immigration law and infringes on constitutional rights. The decision applies only to Minnesota.
The plaintiffs named in the case are originally from Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
“This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled,” Tunheim wrote.
“We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream. The Government’s new policy breaks that promise—without congressional authorization—and raises serious constitutional concerns. The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare,” he wrote.
Tunheim’s order prevents arrests based solely on unadjusted status and requires releases for detained individuals.
Under Operation PARRIS, DHS said adjudicators will conduct thorough background checks, reinterview refugees, and conduct merit reviews of refugee claims.
“Minnesota is ground zero for the war on fraud,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement in January. “This operation in Minnesota demonstrates that the Trump administration will not stand idly by as the U.S. immigration system is weaponized by those seeking to defraud the American people. American citizens and the rule of law come first, always.”
Tunheim wrote in his opinion: “Why subject them to warrantless arrests, place them in shackles, and transport them to distant detention facilities—facilities whose conditions likely resemble the refugee camps they once lived in—simply to conduct the required one-year interview that precedes adjustment to lawful permanent resident status? Why?"
“The Government suggests that they are looking for terrorists, but there is not a shred of evidence in the record that the Named Plaintiffs or the putative Class they seek to represent pose serious national security risks,” the judge wrote.