Federal Judge Halts Trump Administration Policy Targeting Refugees in Minnesota
A federal judge in Minneapolis has strongly rebuked the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement, issuing a preliminary injunction that prevents the arrest and detention of refugees in Minnesota based solely on their lack of lawful permanent resident status, commonly known as green cards. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim condemned the policy, stating it would "terrorize" approximately 5,600 refugees and transform their "American Dream into a dystopian nightmare."
Background of the Controversial Policy
The disputed policy was implemented as part of "Operation PARRIS," a sweeping initiative announced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in January. DHS described the program as a reexamination of thousands of refugee cases, with an initial focus on Minnesota, where a recent immigration enforcement surge and benefits fraud scandal had occurred. The administration argued that immigration law granted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the authority to arrest any refugee who had not obtained a green card after one year in the United States.
Legal Challenges and Judge's Ruling
Refugees from Africa, Asia, and Latin America filed a class-action lawsuit, contending that the Trump administration's interpretation of the law was incorrect and unconstitutional. Judge Tunheim, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, agreed with the plaintiffs. He emphasized that the policy lacked congressional authorization, raised significant constitutional issues, and violated the promises of the Refugee Act of 1980, which aims to provide refugees with "a chance at a new beginning in safety."
Judge Tunheim noted a critical contradiction: by law, refugees cannot apply for green cards until they have been in the country for a year, yet the administration claimed the power to arrest them on the 366th day. In his ruling, he wrote, "The 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."
Reactions and Broader Implications
Kimberly Grano, a lawyer for the Minnesota plaintiffs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, praised the decision, stating that refugees "can now live their lives without fear that their own government will snatch them off the street and imprison them far from their loved ones." This ruling comes shortly after a similar, broader lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts, challenging the policy's enforcement nationwide. DHS has not responded to requests for comment on the injunction.
The preliminary injunction extends an earlier temporary order, effectively blocking the administration's efforts in Minnesota while legal proceedings continue. This case highlights ongoing tensions between federal immigration policies and judicial oversight, particularly concerning refugee rights and protections under U.S. law.
