A group of Minnesota residents of Somali descent and Hispanic heritage has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seeking to effectively halt federal immigration enforcement throughout the state.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Somali immigrant Mubashir Khalif Hussen, American citizens Mahamed Eydarus and Javier Doe, and others. Named defendants include DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE Director Todd Lyons, along with other agency officials.
According to the complaint, federal agents in Minnesota are engaging in “unlawful policies and practices” that violate constitutional protections and federal law. One central claim alleges that immigration agents are stopping individuals to question their status without reasonable suspicion and are disproportionately targeting those perceived to be Somali or Latino.
The lawsuit further accuses agents of making immigration arrests without warrants and without probable cause to believe the individuals are removable — a practice it says even ensnares U.S. citizens who cannot be detained for civil immigration reasons. Plaintiffs argue that these actions run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Equal Protection Clause, and other federal statutes.
Another key allegation centers on what the plaintiffs describe as widespread warrantless arrests without probable cause that a person is a flight risk. The complaint contends that such encounters imperil the civil liberties of everyday residents, who should be free to go about their daily lives without fear of arbitrary or racially biased detention.
The lawsuit explicitly accuses Noem and Lyons of engaging in what it calls a “racial profiling campaign of massive scale with devastating consequences.” It asserts that agents are disproportionately stopping and arresting individuals based on their appearance — particularly those who appear to be Somali or Latino — which the plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional.
In seeking relief, the lawsuit asks a federal court to issue a statewide injunction barring the challenged practices and holding that the actions of federal immigration officials violate constitutional protections. The plaintiffs argue that these measures have created a climate of fear and discrimination in Minnesota communities.
The lawsuit arrives amid ongoing tensions in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota, where anti‑ICE protests have continued in response to recent law enforcement actions, including the fatal shooting of a protester during an ICE operation. Some demonstrations have included attacks on ICE agents and vandalism of federal property, and local law enforcement directives regarding how protests are policed have drawn scrutiny.
As the case moves forward, it is likely to draw significant attention to questions about the limits of federal immigration enforcement, the role of racial profiling in policing, and how constitutional rights are upheld in environments of intense public debate and protest.
