Standing, Not Mootness, at Center of Minnesota Civil Rights Suit Against ICE

Minnesota plaintiffs argue their civil rights case against ICE is not moot despite the operation's end.

Litigation over alleged civil rights violations by federal immigration agents in Minnesota is testing the limits of mootness as the government seeks to dismiss lawsuits following the end of Operation Metro Surge.

• Operation Metro Surge began December 4, 2025, with at least 100 ICE and Homeland Security Investigations agents deployed in the Twin Cities.
• The ACLU’s class action, filed January 15, 2026, alleges that agents, including those detaining U.S. citizen Mubashir Khalif Hussen, racially profiled Minnesotans and conducted warrantless arrests, violating the First and Fourth Amendments.
• A separate lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem, was filed by six individuals who claim federal agents retaliated against them for monitoring law enforcement conduct during the operation.

The government now argues these cases are moot because the challenged operation is over, asserting that injunctive relief requires proof of ongoing or imminent harm (full details).

However, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez expressed concern over the mootness claim, noting federal agencies have offered no formal assurances that similar operations will not recur. The ACLU contends that "the government cannot evade accountability for constitutional violations by voluntarily ending an unlawful operation," without clearly disavowing future actions.

“We’re not aware of any case where the government just stops doing what it’s doing and the court says that’s enough for mootness," said Caitlinrose Fisher, attorney for the Minnesotans.

The court’s eventual ruling could set important precedent for the future of civil rights litigation involving shifting federal enforcement practices.

Yes, but: No details are available on whether DHS or ICE have formally disavowed similar future operations, leaving open the question of recurring harm.