Judge Blocks Trump Administration from Detaining Refugees in Minnesota

(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) — U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim blocked the Trump administration on Friday from arresting or detaining approximately 5,600 legally admitted refugees in Minnesota under Operation PARRIS, issuing a preliminary injunction that keeps the restrictions in place while the lawsuit continues.

The order immediately stops immigration authorities from using the program to carry out arrests and detentions of covered refugees in Minnesota based on how long they have lived in the United States without receiving permanent resident status.

Tunheim’s injunction extends earlier emergency protections he issued in January 2026, when he ordered the immediate release of dozens of detained refugees and halted further arrests as the case began.

The legal fight centers on a Department of Homeland Security enforcement effort that directed authorities to re-examine refugees who had already been admitted and resettled lawfully in the United States, then detain some of them even when they were not accused of crimes.

DHS tied detentions to a one-year marker for refugees, treating the passage of time as an enforcement line rather than only an eligibility milestone for obtaining a green card.

Operation PARRIS, short for Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening, took aim at refugees who had been in the country more than one year but had not yet secured permanent resident status, even if they maintained lawful immigration status.

Tunheim’s ruling described how DHS launched Operation PARRIS through two memoranda, including one in December 2025 and another on February 18, 2026, that changed prior guidance and set arrest and detention directives tied to the “366th day” after admission.

Under the program, DHS directed that refugees who reach their 366th day in the U.S. without applying for green cards under 8 U.S.C. § 1159 must be arrested without warrants and detained indefinitely, even if vetted, crime-free, and in lawful status.

That approach conflicted with longstanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy, last enunciated in 2010, that held lack of adjustment after one year does not provide grounds for detention.

The lawsuit challenging the program also argued that refugees cannot apply for green cards until after one year of physical presence, making voluntary compliance impossible before the 366th day.

In his 66-page order, Tunheim concluded the government likely exceeded its authority by treating non-adjustment as a detention trigger when Congress did not authorize detention on that basis.

He ruled that the government misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1159 and stretched detention authority beyond what Congress authorized for refugees admitted under federal law.

Tunheim wrote that the policy contradicted the spirit of the Refugee Act of 1980, which promises protection and stability to admitted refugees.

“The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare,” Tunheim wrote.

He also described constitutional problems tied to warrantless arrests and broad detention authority applied to refugees who had already been admitted to the country.

“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,” Tunheim wrote.

The judge said the policy raised Fourth Amendment issues because the government pursued arrests and seizures without an offense that would justify a reasonable arrest in the circumstances described in the case.

Tunheim also found due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment, describing sweeping liberty deprivations that he said were not narrowly tailored.

“Why subject them to warrantless arrests, place them in shackles, and transport them to distant detention facilities. The Government suggests that they are looking for terrorists, but there is not a shred of evidence,” Tunheim wrote.

Beyond constitutional questions, the order found problems under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies make and implement policies.

Tunheim concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed at this stage on claims that the DHS memoranda did not match the policy as implemented and that the agency exceeded statutory authority.

A preliminary injunction does not end the case, but it blocks the challenged conduct while litigation continues, and it remains enforceable unless a higher court changes it.

The injunction protects refugees in Minnesota who lack green cards but were admitted lawfully and passed extensive vetting by federal agencies, the court said.

Many of the refugees covered by the order originally came from Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Advocates argued that the enforcement push created fear of sudden detention among families who believed their lawful admission provided stability after resettlement.

International Refugee Assistance Project sued in the case, describing risks of family separation and disruption to work and school for refugees who have built lives in Minnesota.

The litigation highlighted arrests that occurred under the policy, including a high school girl detained overnight in a hotel with ICE agents after threats to her family, the order said.

Tunheim’s January 2026 emergency order had already required the government to release dozens of detained refugees and stop further arrests while the court reviewed the claims.

That earlier court protection took the form of a temporary restraining order, a short-term measure that can expire or be replaced as a case develops.

Friday’s preliminary injunction replaced and extended those protections while the court proceedings move forward.

DHS defended Operation PARRIS as a national security and vetting measure and framed it as necessary to address concerns the administration raised about fraud.

The Trump administration argued the policy served national security and additional vetting goals, and officials are expected to challenge Tunheim’s decision.

The government also argued Operation PARRIS targets immigration fraud in Minnesota, which it described as a focal point for enforcement.

An appeal would shift the dispute to a higher court for review of the injunction, while the underlying lawsuit continues in the trial court.

Related litigation has also surfaced outside Minnesota, including a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts District Court that seeks nationwide vacatur of the DHS memoranda.

Tunheim’s order applies statewide during litigation, shielding refugees from detention under this policy in Minnesota even as broader legal challenges unfold elsewhere.

The case placed Minnesota at the center of a national dispute about the balance of federal immigration authority and the rights of refugees who have already been admitted and resettled.

Minnesota has played a prominent role in recent high-profile immigration enforcement actions affecting refugee and immigrant communities, with large federal operations that drew public scrutiny.

Those enforcement actions triggered protests, lawsuits, and national debate over refugee rights and federal immigration authority, reflecting the intensity of local and national reaction.

Advocacy organizations and resettlement networks in Minnesota helped bring individual accounts into court, shaping the visibility of the litigation and the speed of the legal response.

The judge’s order focused on what the law permits, not on broader political arguments about immigration policy, and it treated the question as whether DHS could lawfully detain refugees based solely on non-adjustment after one year.

Tunheim found that Congress did not authorize detention simply because refugees had not yet adjusted status, and he framed the statutory promise as one of stability for those admitted as refugees.

By blocking enforcement of Operation PARRIS as applied in Minnesota, the court preserved the status quo for refugees who remain in lawful status while they pursue permanent residency.

The injunction does not resolve the merits of the broader dispute, and it does not prevent the government from continuing to litigate its interpretation of the law.

It also does not preclude DHS from taking other actions grounded in separate legal authority, though Tunheim’s order stops arrests and detentions under the program at issue in the case.

For now, Judge Blocks remains the central consequence of the ruling: the detention program cannot operate against covered refugees in Minnesota while the case proceeds.

The Trump administration can ask a higher court to lift or narrow the injunction, and further court filings are expected as the parties fight over the scope of DHS authority and the rights of refugees admitted under federal law.

Tunheim’s order closed with a clear warning about the human impact the court said flowed from the government’s approach. “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,” he wrote.