By Trendsetter Tribune 
A new lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union is intensifying scrutiny of the Trump administration’s large-scale immigration operation in Minnesota, accusing federal agents of engaging in widespread racial profiling that swept up U.S. citizens and lawful residents. The case raises fundamental questions about civil liberties, law enforcement accountability, and the boundaries of federal power during immigration enforcement campaigns.
The Trump administration launched a major immigration crackdown in Minnesota in December, deploying thousands of federal agents as part of what officials have described as the largest immigration operation in U.S. history. The effort followed heightened political focus on the state’s sizable Somali population and sanctuary-style policies that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
Federal officials have insisted the operation is narrowly targeted and focused on public safety. Critics, however, argue that the scope and tactics resemble military-style policing and disproportionately affect communities of color, fueling unrest and protests across the state.
Tensions escalated earlier this month following the fatal shooting of Minnesota resident Renee Good by an ICE agent, followed days later by another incident in which a Venezuelan immigrant was shot during a traffic stop.
What the lawsuit alleges
The class-action lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court, accuses the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Border Patrol of conducting a “racial profiling campaign of massive scale.”
According to the complaint, federal agents “violently stopped and arrested countless Minnesotans based on nothing more than their race and perceived ethnicity,” regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The lawsuit states that Somali and Latino individuals were disproportionately targeted due to racial bias and prejudice.
The ACLU compares the tactics used during the operation to those associated with a police state, arguing that constitutional protections were routinely ignored in the pursuit of enforcement goals.
Allegations involving U.S. citizens
The lawsuit highlights several incidents involving U.S. citizens who say they were detained, searched, or mistreated without lawful justification.
One of the central cases involves Mubashir Khalif Hussen, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen. According to the complaint, Hussen was getting lunch on December 10 when two federal agents in an unmarked vehicle grabbed him, forced him into a restaurant, and then dragged him back outside into the snow.
The suit alleges that agents placed Hussen in a headlock, refused to allow him to retrieve his phone or identification, and ignored repeated statements that he was a U.S. citizen. Hussen reportedly asked to show a photo of his passport card, but agents declined to allow him back into the building.
Even after Hussen’s supervisor presented a copy of his passport card, agents allegedly continued the detention and demanded to scan his face. He was then transported to multiple locations before being taken to an ICE field office at Fort Snelling, where he was released without charges or immigration proceedings.
The lawsuit claims agents released Hussen in freezing December weather and instructed him to walk approximately seven miles back to where he had been detained. He was later picked up by family members.
Additional claims of retaliation
The complaint further alleges that Hussen later experienced retaliation during a separate encounter, when federal agents pepper-sprayed him after he recorded officers from a public sidewalk.
According to the lawsuit, the experience left Hussen fearful of future encounters with law enforcement, stating that “due to his Somali identity,” he now lives with ongoing anxiety about being detained again.
Federal response and administration stance
The Trump administration has consistently denied allegations of racial profiling, maintaining that enforcement actions are intelligence-driven and focused on individuals unlawfully present in the country.
White House officials argue that large-scale deployments are necessary in sanctuary jurisdictions where local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration efforts. The administration has also defended its use of heavily armed agents and unmarked vehicles as essential for officer safety.
Despite these assurances, internal and public criticism has grown as reports indicate that most arrests resulting from the Minnesota operation involved individuals without criminal convictions.
President Trump has also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act if unrest continues, a move that would allow the deployment of active-duty military forces or federalized National Guard troops.
Analysis: Civil liberties under pressure
The lawsuit reflects broader concerns about how immigration enforcement is being carried out nationwide. Civil rights advocates argue that the use of aggressive tactics, coupled with broad discretionary authority, creates conditions where constitutional violations become inevitable.
By centering its case on U.S. citizens rather than undocumented immigrants, the ACLU is emphasizing that the issue extends beyond immigration status and into fundamental questions about equal protection and due process.
If the court allows the case to proceed as a class action, it could open the door to significant judicial oversight of federal immigration operations and establish limits on how agents conduct stops and detentions.
Implications
The outcome of the lawsuit could have wide-reaching implications for immigration enforcement nationwide, particularly in states with large immigrant communities. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs may force changes in federal policy, training, or oversight mechanisms.
Conversely, a dismissal could embolden broader enforcement efforts and further strain relations between federal authorities and local communities.
As protests continue and legal challenges mount, Minnesota has become a focal point in the national debate over immigration, public safety, and civil rights.
Conclusion
The ACLU’s lawsuit places the Trump administration’s Minnesota immigration crackdown under intense legal scrutiny, alleging that racial profiling and excessive force have become systemic features of enforcement operations. With U.S. citizens among those claiming harm, the case underscores the growing tension between aggressive immigration policies and constitutional protections.
As the courts weigh the claims, the outcome may shape not only the future of enforcement in Minnesota, but the broader balance between security and civil liberties across the country.