Mubashir Khalif Hussen v. Noem

Posted on by

Mubashir Khalif Hussen, et al, v. Noem, et al., No. 0:26-cv-00324 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 15, 2026)

On January 15, 2026, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and its subagencies, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt unlawful policies and practices in Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, dramatically escalated enforcement operations, deploying large numbers of masked agents in military-style gear throughout Minnesota. According to the complaint, these operations disproportionately targeted Somali and Latino residents under “Operation Metro Surge.”

Plaintiffs challenge what they describe as a policy of racial profiling, unlawful stops, and arrests that were carried out without warrants or probable cause, asserting violations of constitutional protections under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They argue that federal agents stopped people without reasonable suspicion of removability, arrested people without warrants and without probable cause to believe that those individuals are removable, and that federal agents made arrests without probable cause to believe there was flight risk. Plaintiffs allege individuals were detained solely based on perceived ethnicity, infringing on their rights to equal protection and freedom from unreasonable seizures.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is fully brief and was argued on February 18, 2026.

On March 9, 2026, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief due to their failure to show a future injury that is certainly impending. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not shown an irreparable injury likely in the immediate future given the reduction in scope of the defendants’ Minnesota focused operations. The court laid out findings of fact and conclusions of law in its opinion, noting that Plaintiffs have shown 1) that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional stop and arrest policies, 2) Defendants’ agents stopped twenty-three individuals without reasonable suspicion of immigration law violations, 3) Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that there was not reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity supporting the stops of these twenty-three individuals, and 4) several Plaintiffs were stopped based solely on their race or ethnicity.

The court also found in its opinion that the proposed classes in this case would not be certifiable, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for provisional class certification.

Documents:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union | ACLU of Minnesota | Covington & Burling LLP | Greene Espel PLLP | Robins Kaplan LLP

Contact: Kate Huddleston | khuddleston@aclu.org

Press: