March 9, 2026

Federal judge found ICE, Border Patrol made warrantless, race-based stops of Somali, Latino Minnesotans

U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud ruled on March 9, 2026 that ICE and Border Patrol agents violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping and detaining Somali and Latino Minnesotans based solely on race or ethnicity during a January-February 2026 immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities. Of 33 witnesses examined in an ACLU class-action suit, Tostrud found 23 were subjected to stops lacking reasonable suspicion, and 17 were stopped based solely on race or ethnicity; he denied a preliminary injunction and class certification, citing the surge's wind-down.

Jurisdiction: Federal
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Abuses documented

Actors

On March 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping and detaining Somali and Latino Minnesotans based solely on their race or ethnicity during a January-February 2026 immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities known as Operation Metro Surge. In a 111-page order, Tostrud examined the accounts of 33 witnesses in a class action brought by the ACLU and found that 23 were subjected to investigatory stops lacking reasonable suspicion, and that 17 of those were stopped based solely on race or ethnicity -- agents approaching people on the street or in vehicles and demanding identification without explanation, often without identifying themselves.

Tostrud pointed to public statements by then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who confirmed that "targeted enforcement" included interrogating people about citizenship status regardless of cause, and by Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, who claimed reasonable suspicion alone justified an immigration arrest, as evidence the government maintained a policy of stopping people without the required constitutional threshold. Despite the finding, Tostrud denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and class certification, reasoning that the wind-down of the surge reduced the likelihood the named plaintiffs would be stopped again.

Updates

2026-06 — ACLU-MN filed to voluntarily dismiss Hussen v. Mullin to pursue FTCA claims [3]

In June 2026, the ACLU of Minnesota filed to voluntarily dismiss Hussen v. Mullin, the lawsuit underlying this ruling, saying the move was not the end of the fight but a shift in strategy: plaintiffs filed administrative claims against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act -- a required precursor to renewed litigation -- seeking accountability for those unlawfully stopped, detained, and profiled during Operation Metro Surge.

Why we recorded this

The Fourth Amendment bars government stops based on nothing more than a person's race or ethnicity, and equal application of the law requires enforcement decisions to rest on individualized suspicion, not group identity. A federal judge found ICE and Border Patrol agents in Minnesota stopped and detained dozens of Somali and Latino residents during an enforcement surge without any basis beyond their race, calling the government's justifications "pretextual" and "senseless." This archive records when a federal court confirms that a law-enforcement operation ran on racial profiling rather than constitutional standards.

Sources

Judge rules ICE made warrantless, race-based stops of Somali, Latino Minnesotans — Courthouse News Service investigative accessed August 4, 2026
Judge says ICE showed 'unconstitutional policies' during surge, but won't block its practices — The Spokesman-Review investigative accessed August 4, 2026
ACLU-MN Announces Next Step Toward Accountability for Minnesotans Harmed by Federal Agents, Files to Dismiss Hussen v. Mullin — ACLU of Minnesota primary accessed August 4, 2026