ACLU of Minnesota Moves to Dismiss Hussen v. Mullin Case
MINNEAPOLIS — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota announced plans today to seek the dismissal of the Hussen v. Mullin case, which was initiated to block federal immigration officials from unlawfully stopping, arresting, or racially profiling residents. The organization emphasizes that recent layoffs will not hinder its mission; rather, they represent the next step in the ongoing effort to uphold federal policy concerning immigration practices.
Responsibility of Federal Immigration Officials
The ACLU underscores the obligation of both governmental and federal immigration officials to protect citizens’ rights, particularly those of the plaintiffs in the Hussen v. Marin case. After submitting an administrative claim to the federal government and completing necessary steps, the ACLU plans to return to federal court to further pursue accountability for actions taken against residents.
Constitutional Violations Alleged in Recent Court Hearing
The Hussen v. Marin suit was filed in federal court on behalf of residents from the fourth and fifth counties, alleging that federal agents violated constitutional rights during Operation Metro Surge. The suit sought emergency injunctive relief to halt unconstitutional practices, including suspensions, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies.
Insights from March Court Findings
On March 9, 2026, the court found that a federal immigration application had indeed been submitted. The ruling pointed to unconstitutional practices against Minnesotans, especially concerning stops based on race or ethnicity and arrests made without warrants or probable cause, as mandated by the Constitution. Despite the plaintiffs presenting extensive evidence highlighting the detrimental impact of these policies, the court did not issue an injunction to prevent these unconstitutional actions.
Recognition of Systematic Racial Profiling
The court’s findings reinforced claims long voiced by Minnesotans: federal agents engaged in systematic and unlawful racial profiling, detaining, and arresting individuals. “The evidence is clear: federal immigration officials have violated the Constitution,” stated Katherine Arlin Halverson, ACLU-MN attorney and lead counsel. She emphasized the necessity of holding accountable those who have unlawfully subjected individuals to stops, arrests, and other forms of humiliation based purely on their skin color.
Continuing Legal Proceedings and Accountability Efforts
Covington & Burling LLP, in collaboration with the ACLU-MN and Greene Espel PLLP, has filed a notice with the Department of Homeland Security under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA mandates that injured individuals file an administrative claim with the federal government before pursuing litigation in federal court. ACLU-MN is committed to navigating this administrative process and intends to return to court if necessary, aiming to demand accountability from federal agents.
Background on Legal Action Against Federal Immigration Practices
The ACLU-MN and its partners initiated the Hussen v. Noem lawsuit on January 15, 2026, amid Operation Metro Surge. This was in response to reports alleging that federal agents were stopping, questioning, detaining, or arresting residents without legal justification. The lawsuit cites violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection.
Despite the court denying preliminary injunctive relief on March 9, 2026, it recognized significant constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs. The court suggested that the plaintiffs likely had a strong case under the Fourth Amendment, supporting their claims of unconstitutional stop-and-arrest policies adopted by federal officials. ACLU-MN will continue to pursue accountability through the FTCA process and consider further litigation if necessary.
