A federal judge in the United States has ruled that the government cannot arrest or detain refugees living in Minnesota just because they have not yet received green cards. The decision comes in response to a controversial policy announced by the Trump administration that would have allowed immigration authorities to take legal refugees into custody under certain conditions. The judge said the policy misread immigration law and could unfairly punish people who came to the U.S. legally and followed the rules.
More than 5,600 refugees in Minnesota were directly affected by the government’s plan. These individuals had been admitted to the United States through the refugee resettlement process, which involves thorough background checks and vetting before arrival. Under U.S. law, refugees must apply for a green card, or lawful permanent resident status, about one year after arriving. However, many of these refugees had not yet received their green cards even though they had lived in the country lawfully for more than a year.
In January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) introduced an initiative called “Operation PARRIS,” describing it as a large review of thousands of refugee cases. The policy’s stated goal was to reassess these applications and require refugees to return to federal custody after a year for further review. But refugee advocates and attorneys argued that this interpretation of immigration law was unlawful because the law does not allow federal agents to detain refugees simply for waiting on green cards.
A group of refugees from Africa, Asia, and Latin America filed a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota, challenging the new policy. They said the government was wrong to claim it could arrest refugees who had not yet become permanent residents. They also said the policy created fear and uncertainty among people who came to the U.S. seeking safety and a fresh start.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with the refugees. He issued a preliminary injunction that extended a previous temporary order blocking the government from carrying out arrests or detentions under the new policy. In his decision, he said the government did not have the authority that it claimed under existing laws passed by Congress. The judge also raised concerns that the policy violated constitutional protections and undermined long-standing refugee rights.
Judge Tunheim used strong language in his ruling, saying that he would not allow federal authorities to “terrorize” refugees who were admitted to the United States under the promise of safety and a chance to build a new life. He said that many refugees could not even apply for green cards until a year had passed after their arrival, yet the government was behaving as if it could detain them immediately after that time simply because their paperwork was not yet complete.
The injunction applies only in Minnesota for now. But the judge’s decision came shortly after another group of refugees filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, aiming to challenge the policy on a broader, nationwide basis. Advocates say that this case reflects deeper tensions over immigration enforcement in the United States and raises questions about how far the government can go in interpreting immigration laws.
Refugee rights groups welcomed the ruling. Kimberly Grano, a lawyer for the Minnesota plaintiffs with the International Refugee Assistance Project, said the decision means refugees can now live without the fear of being suddenly arrested and detained by their own government. She added that many refugees had been living in constant anxiety as they waited for their green cards, unsure whether they could safely go about their daily lives or visit family and work.
The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly commented on the judge’s ruling. However, the Trump administration had previously described the new policy as part of efforts to maintain national security and ensure that immigration laws are applied consistently. The government is expected to challenge the judge’s decision in higher courts.
