Donald Trump suffers double legal blow on ICE actions in hours

Two federal judges delivered major defeats to the Trump administration’s immigration policies on the same day, blocking enforcement practices in Oregon and Minnesota.

In both cases, the courts found that federal immigration authorities had acted in ways that violated statutory or constitutional protections, ordering immediate changes to enforcement procedures in the affected states.

The rulings come as President Donald Trump’s administration has been marshaling resources across the federal government to carry out an expansive enforcement campaign under his hardline deportation policy. In recent months, officials have coordinated personnel and operations from ICE and U.S. Border Patrol, alongside agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, to conduct widespread immigration enforcement actions.

Trump officials have described the effort as a whole-of-government approach aimed at increasing arrests and removals. At the same time, critics say the strategy has raised concerns about civil liberties, allegations of misconduct, and racial profiling.

Oregon Ruling Bars Warrantless ICE Arrests

In Oregon, a federal judge on Friday ordered ICE agents to stop arresting residents without a warrant and without first making a probable cause determination that the person posed a risk of fleeing before a warrant could be obtained, according to court filings.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, a Biden appointee, places a preliminary injunction on the agency, temporarily blocking the challenged practices while the case proceeds. Judge Kasubhai wrote that there was a high likelihood that a group of immigrants who brought the lawsuit would succeed on the merits of their claim that ICE had been abusing its arrest and deportation powers.

“Defendants’ practice of conducting warrantless arrests without the required individualized probable cause determination of escape risk is not tentative or interlocutory and rather, represents the consummation of defendants’ decision-making process to engage in this unlawful conduct,” Kasubhai wrote in court documents reviewed by Newsweek.

In a detailed opinion, the judge found that ICE officers had engaged in enforcement operations that amounted to unlawful “dragnets,” detaining individuals without individualized probable cause and in the absence of judicial warrants.

The court concluded that such actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing the governing legal standards as “clear and undisputed.”

The injunction prohibits ICE in Oregon from carrying out civil immigration arrests unless agents secure a judicial warrant or determine, based on specific facts, that there is probable cause both of removability and of escape risk. The court’s order requires the agency to bring its practices into compliance with constitutional requirements while litigation continues.

“Defendants’ voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not moot this case,” the judge wrote. “Defendants have a longstanding history of noncompliance with these same laws. The court has no confidence that they will cease the unlawful practices, even, if not especially, when they insist with a straight face they are complying with the law.”

Minnesota Court Blocks Refugee Detention Policy

In Minnesota, a federal judge on Friday ordered federal immigration agents to stop arresting residents without a warrant and without first making a probable cause determination that the person posed a risk of fleeing before a warrant could be obtained.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, a Clinton appointee, granted a motion from refugee advocates to convert a temporary restraining order issued in January into a broader preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.

The case stems from ‘Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening),’ a Department of Homeland Security initiative to reexamine refugee cases through additional background checks and interviews. Under the policy, refugees who have lived in the U.S. for over a year without a green card could be taken into federal custody for further vetting. The Trump administration asserts it has the authority to detain potentially tens of thousands of legally admitted refugees whose green card applications are still pending.

“This Court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise that they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far from the persecution they fled,” Tunheim wrote in court documetsn.

“We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream,” Tunheim said. “The Government’s new policy breaks that promise—without congressional authorization—and raises serious constitutional concerns. The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”

Judge Tunheim concluded that the government lacked clear congressional authority to arrest or detain refugees on that basis alone and that such a policy “terrorize[d]” individuals who were admitted after rigorous vetting.

In a 66-page ruling, the court said that refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program have legal rights to live and work in the United States, and that none of the named plaintiffs had been charged with removal charges, found dangerous, or shown to pose a flight risk.

The opinion noted that DHS’s statutory interpretation, which posited that officials could detain refugees indefinitely once they hit 366 days in the country, contradicted decades of established practice and the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Judge Tunheim’s order converts the earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, requiring that refugees already detained in Minnesota be released, and also barring new detentions under the challenged policy. The ruling draws on firsthand accounts of individuals who said they were arrested without warrants, transported to facilities in Texas, and subjected to lengthy interrogations before being released far from home.

“Refugees came to the U.S. fleeing violence, and the United States promised them peace and safety,” Sarah Kahn, Senior Staff Attorney, CHRCL, said in a statement. “By targeting, persecuting, detaining, and seeking to deport refugees, the United States is breaking that promise. We are grateful that the Court continues to hold the U.S. accountable for keeping its promise to refugees.”