Can States Bill the Federal Government for Unwanted Operations?

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Minneapolis has spent over $2 million on police overtime in just four days—not for a natural disaster or local emergency, but to respond to a federal immigration operation the city never asked for and opposes.

The operation could continue for years, raising a question American courts have never directly addressed: When the federal government conducts enforcement operations that states consider unconstitutional, who pays the bill?

Minnesota’s response, in a lawsuit filed January 12 against the Trump administration, is simple: not us. The state wants a federal judge to halt what it calls an unlawful “federal invasion“—Operation Metro Surge, which has deployed more than 2,000 armed federal agents into Minneapolis and St. Paul since December.

Beyond the immediate request for an injunction, Minnesota’s lawsuit tests whether states have legal power to resist federal operations they view as illegal.

When Federal Operations Cost Millions, Immediately

Minneapolis police tracked the costs carefully. By January 9, officers had worked more than 3,000 overtime hours responding to incidents created by the federal presence. These immediate costs are part of a broader pattern: the city’s 2025 police budget faced a $30 million overtime shortfall, and the 2026 budget projects $3.64 million in savings from reduced overtime—projections now threatened by the ongoing federal operation.

That figure doesn’t include what the school system spent when schools went into lockdown because federal agents flooded residential neighborhoods. It doesn’t count emergency medical services, or the criminal justice system processing arrests, or the city employees managing crowd control around federal operations.

DHS designed, sized, staffed, and directed Operation Metro Surge. But it doesn’t have to pay for the costs it creates.

The city can’t simply decline to send police when federal agents create public emergencies. The city can’t order schools to stay open when federal actions threaten safety. The city can’t tell residents to ignore the fear that’s kept them out of public spaces—fear documented in the lawsuit through reports that businesses saw customer decreases of 50 to 80 percent.

So costs pile up every day, with no way to get reimbursed and no end in sight.

The Shooting That Made It Personal

Operation Metro Surge had been underway for weeks before most Americans heard about it. What changed was January 7, when ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good.

Good was 37, a U.S. citizen, a poet, a mother. She positioned her vehicle to block federal agents during an enforcement action in a residential neighborhood. Federal officials say she used her vehicle as a weapon and Ross fired in self-defense. Minnesota officials who reviewed the video publicly disputed that account.

Protests erupted. Hundreds gathered at the memorial site.

The Good shooting helped Minnesota’s case in two ways. It showed the dangers built into the federal tactics. And it gave the lawsuit political support it might not have had otherwise. The combination of one death and a pattern of problems made the case impossible to ignore.

The Legal Problem: Can States Sue the Federal Government?

The federal government has legal protection from lawsuits. A constitutional rule that normally protects the federal government from being sued shields it from most legal challenges. But there’s an important exception: States can ask courts to stop federal officials from breaking constitutional rules or federal law, even when monetary damages aren’t available.

Minnesota’s lawsuit works around this by asking the court to stop the operation, not to pay for past costs. The state isn’t asking for money. It’s asking a court to make the federal government stop.

Minnesota is making several different legal arguments, each attacking the problem from a different angle. Legal analyst Michael Sellers says Minnesota’s approach is legally aggressive—combining arguments about state power, political retaliation, and improper federal procedures.

Minnesota’s first argument is based on a constitutional rule about state power: when DHS operations create crises, the federal government is forcing the city to use its police without asking. That violates the constitutional rule that the federal government can’t force states to run federal programs.

Minnesota isn’t saying the federal government can’t enforce immigration law. It’s saying these specific tactics—arrests without warrants, force against peaceful people, raids in schools and churches—go too far, even for enforcement actions.

The First Amendment claim is more straightforward. Minnesota says Operation Metro Surge was partly motivated by political revenge. If the federal government sent 2,000 agents to Minnesota partly because it’s angry at the state’s leaders—because Minnesota voted against Trump, refused to help with enforcement, or certified election results Trump didn’t like—that would be illegal punishment for political speech.

Minnesota’s strongest argument is that DHS broke its own internal rules. If Minnesota proves DHS agents weren’t trained for their jobs, courts can stop the operation without deciding bigger questions about state and federal power. Border Patrol agents are trained for border work, not for arresting people inside cities, yet they’re being used for work ICE normally does—that likely breaks federal procedure rules.

Illinois Files a Similar Lawsuit on the Same Day

Illinois filed a similar lawsuit on January 12, challenging Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago. The allegations are nearly identical: Border Patrol agents without proper training doing enforcement work inside the country, warrantless arrests, tear gas used against peaceful people, including children and elderly residents—at least 75 separate incidents, with tear gas used in 49 of them. Raids on apartment buildings without court approval. Fingerprints and facial scans taken from Illinois residents without permission.

If enforcement were based on where undocumented immigrants live, why would Minnesota and Illinois face huge operations while states with more undocumented immigrants face nothing? The answer Minnesota and Illinois offer is obvious: This is political revenge disguised as enforcement.

Historical Precedent

States have sometimes tried to get money back for costs from federal actions they thought were illegal, but rarely won. The closest example is a Supreme Court case that said the federal government can’t force states to run federal programs. But that case didn’t address what happens when federal operations create costs states have to pay for.

California successfully stopped the Trump administration from using federal transportation money as leverage for compliance, with courts saying the administration broke the law. That case wasn’t about getting reimbursed, but it showed courts will stop the federal government when it clearly breaks the law.

The broader pattern shows a fundamental conflict. States depend on federal money, so the federal government can threaten to cut it off to force compliance. But when federal operations create costs for states, the states have to pay with no way to get the money back. Minnesota’s lawsuit directly challenges this unfair system. If the federal government can force states to pay for its operations, what stops it from imposing any costs it wants?

The Scale of Operation Metro Surge

DHS called Operation Metro Surge the largest immigration enforcement operation in history. By January 7, the agency announced over 1,500 arrests and plans to send about 1,000 more agents to Minnesota. More than 2,000 armed federal agents in the Twin Cities—more than both cities’ police forces combined. Many agents wore masks and worked in heavily armed groups.

Mayor Jacob Frey said the huge number of agents was intimidation, not public safety, noting that sometimes dozens of agents arrest a single person.

Federal immigration enforcement nearly doubled the number of people being held in custody—from 39,000 to 70,000 people per day. If these operations keep creating costs for states and cities, the money problems will pile up fast. The city’s $2 million for four days suggests a sustained multi-month operation could cost tens of millions. Multiply that across multiple cities in multiple states, and the total cost becomes enormous.

What Courts Could Do

Minnesota’s immediate goal is to get a court to stop or limit Operation Metro Surge while the case continues. Minnesota must prove four things: it will probably win, waiting causes real harm, stopping is fair, and it helps the public.

Minnesota has a strong argument that waiting will cause permanent damage. Constitutional violations can’t be fixed with money, and costs pile up every day without a court order.

Whether Minnesota will win is more complicated. Judges might reject the state power argument because they’ve already said the federal government has power over immigration. The First Amendment argument is stronger but uncertain—judges sometimes find illegal retaliation, but proving the federal government’s motivation is hard, and judges don’t like using presidential speeches as evidence.

The procedural claims are the strongest. If Minnesota shows DHS broke its own rules or sent agents beyond their authority, judges can stop those practices without deciding bigger questions about state and federal power.

Federal judges will worry about limits on their own power. Recent Supreme Court decisions say judges shouldn’t control how the executive branch spends money nationwide. A court might worry about stopping all DHS operations, but might be willing to stop specific practices like warrantless questioning or raids in schools.

Broader Implications for Federalism

Beyond the immediate dispute, Minnesota’s lawsuit raises questions American courts have never answered. If Minnesota wins—or even if judges say states should be able to recover costs—it could change how states and the federal government work together.

If states could get reimbursed for costs from federal operations, federal agencies would have to work with states and think about whether states can afford it. It would mean that even though the federal government is powerful, it has to share responsibility with states for the costs of its actions.

The federal government would oppose this outcome. States might be able to pressure the federal government by refusing to pay for operations. If states could sue for money, federal agencies would have to worry about state budgets.

Congress might pass a law forcing states to pay for federal actions, or might create federal money to pay states back. Either way, Congress would have to act instead of letting the president decide.

The current system lets the federal government create costs that cities have to pay, with no way to get the money back and no limits on federal power.

What Comes Next

The immediate question—whether a judge will stop the operation—will probably be decided within weeks or months. But the bigger questions about federal power, state power, and who pays will take years and might go to the Supreme Court.

For now, the city faces ongoing federal operations, mounting costs, and no legal clarity. The $2 million for four days may be the beginning of a much bigger fight over money and power.

Minnesota’s lawsuit asks a simple question American law has never directly answered: When the federal government conducts operations states think are illegal, who pays? Right now, Minnesota does. Whether that’s legal is what judges will decide.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.