Federal Judges Can Limit Immigration Enforcement—But Rarely Do. Here’s Why.

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On a Monday morning in Minneapolis, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez asked a question that most federal judges never have to confront.

That question gets at something most Americans don’t realize about how enforcement works in this country. Federal judges have substantial legal authority to restrain operations that violate the Constitution. They almost never use it.

The Power Judges Have

Federal courts can issue preliminary injunctions—court orders that temporarily stop something while a case is decided—against any executive action that violates the law. The standards are straightforward: the person suing needs to show they’re likely to win the case, that they’ll suffer serious, lasting harm that money can’t repair later without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favors them, and that an injunction serves the public interest.

These standards apply to immigration cases the same way they apply to environmental cases, labor disputes, or challenges to federal regulations. There’s no special exception that says enforcement gets a free pass.

Courts do find constitutional violations in these cases constantly. But ICE keeps doing it anyway. The agency continues applying mandatory detention policies despite hundreds of individual court orders saying those policies are unconstitutional. Courts, for the most part, let them.

But when it came to halting the entire operation—stopping the deployment of thousands of agents—she wasn’t sure she could do it.

The Supreme Court’s Limits on Injunctions

Last June, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. CASA, Inc., a case that fundamentally changed what relief federal courts can offer. The Court held, 6-3, that district courts can’t issue orders that apply to everyone everywhere—orders that apply to everyone, not just the people in the lawsuit.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion addressed the historical basis for such broad injunctions, stating that they lack sufficient grounding in traditional equitable practice.

This creates a practical problem. Say Menendez finds that Operation Metro Surge violates state rights, equal protection, and fair legal procedures. If her injunction can only protect the named plaintiffs—Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul as government entities—what does that accomplish? Does it stop ICE from operating in Minnesota? Does it mean ICE can’t interfere with state government operations? The scope of available relief becomes unclear.

If the answer is unclear, issuing an injunction becomes risky. She knows any broad injunction will face immediate appeal and possible reversal.

The Deference Problem

The CASA decision formalized something that was already true: federal courts treat enforcement differently than other executive actions.

If you’ve spent your career learning that enforcement deserves deference, that it’s within the executive’s domain, that courts should respect agency expertise in this area—it becomes hard to believe you should override those decisions, even when they look constitutionally problematic.

During the hearing, Menendez asked pointed questions that suggested she saw problems with Operation Metro Surge. She seemed skeptical that raw scale—thousands of agents—should be presumptively lawful because it’s enforcement. But even as she expressed these doubts, the habit of deferring to enforcement seemed to pull her away from the conclusion that she should halt the operation entirely.

Real Consequences of Non-Intervention

School attendance has dropped because families are afraid to send their kids. Pregnant women are skipping prenatal appointments. Businesses report revenue losses of 50 to 80 percent. People have died.

For Minnesota residents, whether Menendez issues a temporary restraining order determines whether these harms continue for months while the case proceeds through the courts, or whether they stop now.

How Courts Have Handled Enforcement Cases

Menendez isn’t unique in her hesitation. Federal courts have issued numerous injunctions against specific policies—travel bans, census citizenship questions, attempts to end DACA. But those injunctions targeted specific policy decisions, not large-scale enforcement operations.

Courts are more comfortable restraining what they can characterize as a “policy” than what looks like core executive enforcement. A court might find that individual enforcement stops violate the Fourth Amendment without enjoining enforcement operations entirely. Might restrain specific tactics like tear gas while permitting continued agent presence. The preference is for incremental limitations on methods rather than operational restraints.

This reflects concerns that judges worry about overstepping into the executive branch’s job. But where’s the line between enforcing the Constitution and making decisions that should be up to elected officials? In these cases, that line gets blurry fast.

The Problem of Defiant Agencies

Agencies have demonstrated a pattern of defying court orders. If you’re a federal judge considering an injunction, this pattern matters. Issue an order halting Operation Metro Surge, and DHS might refuse to comply—treating the order as non-binding or subject to reinterpretation. Then what? Escalate to contempt proceedings and jail DHS officials? That’s an extreme remedy courts almost never deploy.

The judiciary knows agencies resist judicial authority. That knowledge makes them rationally hesitant to issue injunctions they’re uncertain they can enforce.

Broad State Coalition Support

Nineteen state attorneys general plus the District of Columbia filed friend-of-the-court briefs. That’s a remarkably broad coalition—Democratic-led states like California and New York, but also some Republican-led states.

These briefs provide evidence that Minnesota’s concerns about federal power aren’t unique—they’re shared across multiple states. They offer specialized arguments grounded in state governance experience. The breadth of state support appeared to affect how Menendez framed the issues during oral arguments.

Institutional and Political Pressures

Cases involving enforcement are politically contentious. Decisions affecting policy receive extensive media coverage and prompt political responses.

A federal judge considering a sweeping injunction against Operation Metro Surge must anticipate substantial criticism, possible appellate reversal, and potential effects on her professional reputation. The higher courts have already shown they’re skeptical. If the Eighth Circuit is prepared to stay her orders, what’s the practical effect of any injunction?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, maintaining a stay of restrictions on ICE stops in Los Angeles, emphasized that judges shouldn’t decide how enforcement should be done. This skepticism about judicial intervention appears to be trickling down.

What’s at Stake

Strip away the doctrine and precedent, and here’s what the Operation Metro Surge litigation is testing: whether federal courts are able and willing to restrain federal enforcement operations that states challenge on constitutional grounds.

If Menendez declines to issue injunctive relief, it signals that courts view enforcement as largely protected from court review—even when constitutional claims are substantial and documented harms are severe. If she grants relief, it may signal increased willingness by federal courts to police the boundaries of federal enforcement authority.

The case tests whether federal courts can overcome the traditional habit of deferring to enforcement decisions. Menendez’s evident skepticism about Operation Metro Surge, combined with her uncertainty about her authority to intervene, suggests that even those who recognize constitutional problems may lack confidence in their power to address them.

The Current Status and Next Steps

As of late January, Menendez hadn’t issued a ruling. She indicated she’d issue a written opinion but didn’t specify a timeline.

Operation Metro Surge continues. Federal agents remain on Minnesota streets. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has stated the operation will continue until her policy demands are met—explicitly conditioning withdrawal on state policy changes. Precisely the kind of coercion that concerned Menendez during oral arguments.

If she denies the temporary restraining order, Minnesota will likely seek immediate appeal to the Eighth Circuit. If she grants a TRO, she’ll need to hold a fuller hearing on a preliminary injunction. The Justice Department would almost certainly appeal that too.

This litigation occurs in a context of broader national questions about judicial power in these cases. The Supreme Court’s CASA decision has substantially limited nationwide injunctions. State attorneys general are increasingly asserting limits based on state power versus federal power on enforcement. Federal courts at all levels are grappling with how courts are supposed to check immigration enforcement in a context that has historically operated under distinctive deference principles.

National Implications

For American governance, the case raises a fundamental question: whether the Constitution stops the federal government from doing things when it constrains enforcement.

If federal enforcement can proceed largely unchecked by judicial oversight—despite substantial state arguments that it violates the Tenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions—then enforcement follows different constitutional rules than other federal powers.

The nineteen state attorneys general who filed briefs understand these broader implications. Their briefs consistently reference the precedent being set. They recognize that the outcome will affect how federal-state conflicts over enforcement are handled nationwide for years to come.

Menendez’s decision will reveal how federal courts are currently calibrating the tension between judicial authority and judicial restraint in these cases. It will indicate whether federal courts think they have the power—and sufficient justification—to issue broad injunctions against federal enforcement operations. It will show whether multiple states working together can overcome the traditional deference to enforcement. And it will signal to future litigants and the judiciary what role courts are prepared to play in policing the boundaries of federal enforcement authority.

For Minnesota residents living under Operation Metro Surge, the answer determines whether schools stay open, whether pregnant women can get prenatal care, whether businesses survive. For federal enforcement nationwide, the precedent matters. Whether courts can limit federal power—particularly where judges have been most reluctant to challenge the government—remains unsettled.

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