A federal judge’s ruling to prevent the Trump administration from arresting lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota has revealed serious legal, humanitarian, and constitutional concerns about the Trump administration’s ever-expanding immigration enforcement agenda.
US District Judge John R. Tunheim’s ruling stays what refugee advocates have called an unprecedented arrest campaign against refugees who have completed lengthy vetting procedures and are living in the United States. The ruling highlights the increasing conflict between the executive and judicial branches and America’s humanitarian commitments under international refugee law.
A Sudden Wave of Arrests—and Legal Limbo
In the past few weeks, over 100 refugees living in Minnesota were arrested by federal authorities, as reported by lawyers and advocacy organizations. Many of these refugees were sent to detention centers in Texas, only to be released without warning to make their own way back home.
The number of refugees arrested and the speed at which this happened alarmed lawyers. Refugees, unlike undocumented immigrants, enter the US after going through a government-operated resettlement program that includes comprehensive background checks by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the FBI, the State Department, and US intelligence agencies. This can take up to 18 to 24 months, and in some cases, even longer.
Judge Tunheim issued an injunction against the immediate arrest and detention of lawfully resettled refugees in Minnesota and the release of those who were sent to Texas within five days due to the possibility of irreparable harm.
Operation Parris: Security Review or Policy Overreach?
The arrests are part of “Operation Parris,” a DHS program announced earlier this month and characterized by the administration as a “sweeping re-examination” of refugee admissions through new background checks and enhanced verification.
DHS has indicated that about 5,600 refugees across the country who have not yet adjusted to permanent resident status may be eligible for the new review process. Critics say the policy essentially establishes a second review process that is open-ended and lacks standards, timelines, and due process safeguards.
Law experts point out that, while the executive branch has considerable latitude in immigration enforcement, retroactively reviewing refugees after they have been formally admitted to the country strains existing law, specifically the Refugee Act of 1980, which was intended to provide stability and legal certainty to those seeking refuge from persecution.
Human Impact: Fear, Trauma, and Family Separation
Court documents include chilling reports from refugees who were caught up in the sweep.
“I was lured out of my home by a man who said my car had been damaged in a hit-and-run incident,”
said one plaintiff, known as D Doe.
“Then I was surrounded by armed agents and arrested.”
Doe was held in Minnesota, then transported to Texas, questioned about his status as a refugee, and finally released without help. He had to make his way back home on his own.
“I left my country of origin because I was under threat of government repression,”
Doe said.
“I never thought it would happen again in America.”
His wife, a refugee as well, is said to have become so fearful of leaving the house that she moved in temporarily with friends, afraid that agents would come back for her. “This is not an isolated incident,” said one refugee advocate.
“There is a climate of fear that is spreading through the refugee community”.
Minnesota Refugees Caught in Broader Enforcement Dragnet
Minnesota has one of the largest refugee populations in the US, including Somalian, Afghan, Burmese, Ethiopian, and Congolese refugees. According to state statistics, over 90,000 refugees have been resettled in Minnesota since the 1970s.
Activists believe that Operation Parris has added to the anxiety caused by aggressive immigration raids throughout the state, where thousands of federal agents have been deployed. Refugees have been staying away from their jobs, schools, and doctor’s appointments due to fear of racial profiling.
Due Process Concerns and Lack of Legal Representation
One of the most troubling aspects of the operation, attorneys argue, is how quickly detainees were transferred out of state—often within hours—making it nearly impossible for families to locate them or secure legal counsel.
Unlike asylum seekers or undocumented migrants, most refugees do not retain immigration attorneys after resettlement because their legal status is considered secure. This left many detainees navigating a complex legal system entirely alone.
In some cases, refugees were released late at night without notice to families. Others were put on planes without being told their destination, leading them to believe they were being deported to countries they had fled under threat of persecution.
One refugee was released in Texas
“with no belongings, no money, no papers,”
according to his attorney.
Legal and International Law Implications
According to human rights groups, Operation Parris defies US and international law. Michele Garnett McKenzie, the executive director of The Advocates for Human Rights, called the policy “an unprecedented attack on the fundamental human rights” guaranteed by the 1951 Refugee Convention and codified into US law by the Refugee Act of 1980.
According to international law, refugees cannot be arbitrarily detained or refouled, which refers to the forced return to countries where they will be persecuted. Legal scholars say that the normalization of mass re-vetting could have a chilling effect on these rights worldwide.
Judicial Warning: Irreparable Harm
Judge Tunheim’s ruling emphasised the human cost of the administration’s approach.
“The stories of terror and trauma recounted by named plaintiffs make this harm impossible to ignore,”
he wrote, concluding that the threat of irreparable harm clearly outweighed the government’s asserted interests at this stage.
The decision does not permanently block Operation Parris, but it places firm limits on its implementation while litigation proceeds.
A Broader Pattern of Executive Expansion?
The Minnesota case fits into a wider pattern during Trump’s second term, in which immigration enforcement has increasingly blurred distinctions between undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and lawfully admitted refugees.
Critics argue that such policies risk transforming refugee protection into a provisional status that can be revoked at will, undermining the credibility of the US refugee system at a time when global displacement has reached record levels—more than 114 million people worldwide, according to the UN.
The DHS has not yet responded publicly to the ruling, but the outcome of the lawsuit could have nationwide implications. If the courts ultimately strike down Operation Parris, it may reassert limits on executive authority over refugees. If the policy survives, it could redefine refugee resettlement as a conditional, reversible privilege rather than a durable protection.
For now, the Minnesota ruling stands as a rare judicial rebuke—one that highlights how national security rhetoric, when unchecked, can collide with the rule of law and the lived realities of those seeking safety.
