DON’T GET STRESSED WHEN YOU HEAR THAT “A JUDGE ALLOWED OPERATION METRO SURGE TO CONTINUE IN MINNESOTA”! HERE ARE THE FACTS AND I HAVE THE ORDER
Earlier today Judge Katherine Menendez of the United States District Court in Minnesota denied the State of Minnesota’s request to enjoin the Trump administration from continuing its surge of ICE and other federal agents under the program known as Operation Metro Surge. Of course news agencies are making it sound like the Judge basically sided with the administration in terms of thinking that what’s going on there is just fine and dandy, and that she handed them a win on the merits. She didn’t, it’s not, and she didn’t. Here’s what’s really going on.
Minnesota asked the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) also known as an Emergency Injunction, against Operation Metro Surge. The Court converted that to a hearing on a Preliminary Injunction (this allows for a fuller evidentiary hearing with both sides fully participating).
Now, here’s the thing: the State of Minnesota predicated its entire ask on the 10th Amendment. You remember that from high school civics class, right? It’s the one that goes:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That’s pretty short and sweet. And there is a *lot* of case law out there articulating what it means and how it applies to various facts and scenarios. And the Court goes into great detail about those various decisions, particularly Supreme Court decisions. And if you are interested in that deep dive you can read the opinion (it’s 30 pages and included for all of you Notes from the Front members) – it makes for very interesting reading, but you don’t need to read it to understand the outcome of Minnesota’s request.
Minnesota basically said that a) Operation Metro Surge (OMS) was draining Minnesota of resources which now had to be spent or allocated to dealing with OMS, so in effect the Federal government was ‘commandeering’ those state resources, and/or b) the Federal government was targeting Minnesota in an effort to bend Minnesota to its will because Minnesota is considered a sanctuary state.
Here’s the thing: there is NO – absolutely zero – precedent for *this* particular situation in which Minnesota finds itself. That means there was *no* precedent on which the Court could hang its hat to give Minnesota that injunction while, and this is important, *while the case continues to move forward*.
The Judge even makes a point of saying that this is a novel case, and that she is in no way saying that the case doesn’t have merit, and that the case *will continue on the merits*. She is just saying, and *only* saying, that Minnesota wasn’t able to come up with any arguments fitting *existing* case law with respect to the 10th Amendment and the current situation.
So no injunction.
To be clear: THIS IS NOT A DECISION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN MINNEAPOLIS!
It is, and *only* is, a decision about whether under the authorities that Minnesota cited the facts fit the *existing law* in order to issue an injunction *while the case continues*. Remember, administrative actions (temporary injunctions, stays, etc.) are *never* on the merits of the case, they are about what happens while the Court is deciding on the merits (the facts and applicable law) of the case.
And also remember that the Judge is *required* to *only* consider what the parties put before her and argue. If there were a *different* law out there that would apply, she can’t, you know, give Minnesota a hint. She has to stick strictly to what’s in front of her.
I fully expect Minnesota to appeal it to the Court of Appeals, and it’s quite likely that whatever happens there the loser will appeal to the Supreme Court. But in the meantime the case will proceed on its merits.
Notes from the Front members: Today’s 30-page opinion and order is in your inbox.
NOTE: To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with, and to protect myself from claims of improper republication, and hey, the trolls, I make documents I find (and at times purchase out of my own pocket) privately available to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents, others may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, and our private chat for $5 a month.
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/dont-get-stressed-when-you-hear-that
Source