Two federal judges in two different states delivered a blunt and unmistakable message to the Trump administration on Friday: immigration enforcement does not override the Constitution.
Within hours of each other, courts in Oregon and Minnesota issued sweeping preliminary injunctions blocking key components of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration campaign. In sharply worded opinions, both judges concluded that federal authorities likely violated statutory limits and constitutional protections in their push to expand arrests and detentions.
The rulings represent significant judicial setbacks to an administration that has leaned heavily on what officials describe as a “whole-of-government” enforcement model—deploying agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration in coordinated immigration operations nationwide.
Critics have long argued that the strategy prioritizes arrest numbers over due process. On Friday, two federal courts appeared to agree.
Oregon: Court Halts Warrantless ICE Arrests
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction barring ICE from conducting civil immigration arrests without a judicial warrant or a documented, individualized probable cause determination that a person poses a risk of flight before a warrant can be obtained.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit alleging that ICE agents engaged in broad enforcement sweeps—what the court described as unlawful “dragnets”—detaining individuals without individualized probable cause and without judicial authorization.
Judge Kasubhai found there was a “high likelihood” that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claims. The Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, he wrote, is not optional—even in the context of immigration enforcement.
“Defendants’ practice of conducting warrantless arrests without the required individualized probable cause determination of escape risk is not tentative or interlocutory,” the judge wrote, calling the conduct the “consummation” of agency decision-making.
Perhaps most striking was the court’s skepticism that ICE would voluntarily reform its conduct. “Defendants have a longstanding history of noncompliance with these same laws,” Kasubhai wrote, adding that the court had “no confidence” the agency would cease the challenged practices absent judicial intervention.
The injunction now requires ICE in Oregon to secure judicial warrants or establish individualized probable cause of both removability and flight risk before making civil arrests while the case proceeds.
Minnesota: Refugee Detention Policy Blocked
In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim blocked enforcement of a controversial refugee detention initiative known as “Operation PARRIS” (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening).
The Department of Homeland Security policy sought to reexamine refugees who had been in the United States for more than one year but had not yet obtained green cards. Under the administration’s interpretation of federal law, such refugees could be detained pending further review—even absent criminal charges or individualized findings of danger or flight risk.
Judge Tunheim converted a previously issued temporary restraining order into a broader preliminary injunction, ordering that detained refugees in Minnesota be released and barring new arrests under the policy.
In a forceful opinion, Tunheim rejected the government’s statutory interpretation, finding no clear congressional authorization for such detentions. He wrote that the policy contradicted decades of established practice under the Immigration and Nationality Act and raised serious constitutional concerns.
“This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees,” Tunheim wrote, emphasizing that those admitted under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program had already undergone extensive vetting and were lawfully present in the country.
The court noted that none of the named plaintiffs had been charged with removal, found dangerous, or shown to pose a flight risk. Yet some had allegedly been arrested without warrants, transported to distant facilities, and interrogated for extended periods.
Tunheim’s opinion framed the issue not merely as statutory overreach, but as a breach of the government’s promise to refugees admitted after fleeing persecution.
A Pattern of Judicial Resistance
Together, the Oregon and Minnesota rulings underscore a growing judicial resistance to elements of the administration’s aggressive deportation campaign.
Trump officials have defended their approach as necessary to restore order and enforce federal immigration law, arguing that broad coordination across agencies increases efficiency and public safety. But the courts, at least in these two cases, signaled that enforcement efficiency cannot come at the expense of constitutional safeguards.
Both judges emphasized the same core principle: immigration authority, while expansive, is not limitless. Federal agents must still respect the Fourth Amendment and operate within the boundaries Congress has clearly defined.
The litigation in both states will continue. But for now, two federal courts have drawn a bright line—one that requires individualized suspicion, judicial oversight, and fidelity to statutory text before the machinery of detention and deportation can move forward.
For an administration that has made aggressive immigration enforcement a centerpiece of its policy agenda, the message from the bench was unmistakable: the Constitution still governs.
