enforcement

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

The federal government argued that the surge, which it calls Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is political retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lauded the ruling Saturday on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department.

Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

Jan. 27 (Asia Today) — A recent wave of government investigations centered on one company recalls the Korean proverb about burning down a thatched house to kill a flea. The question is whether an aggressive push to solve the problem is fully accounting for the costs and fallout created along the way.

A major personal data breach is not something to dismiss. If there was managerial negligence or a structural failure, regulators should identify it and assign clear responsibility. But the pattern of probes now unfolding around Coupang raises a broader concern about whether the administrative response is proportionate and efficient, beyond the stated goal of accountability.

More than 10 government bodies have moved at the same time, including the Fair Trade Commission, the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Personal Information Protection Commission, police, the Financial Supervisory Service, the National Tax Service and customs authorities. Hundreds of investigators have reportedly been assigned, with weeks of on-site inspections. Even the Fair Trade Commission’s probe is said to be taking longer than expected. In effect, a “mini Sejong City” of regulators has been assembled for a single corporate case.

The problem is not the intensity of enforcement but its cost. Administrative resources are finite. Public officials’ time and expertise, along with the fiscal spending that follows large deployments, are costs borne by society. When hundreds of personnel spend weeks on one case, oversight in other areas inevitably slows. That is not merely a burden for one company but a broader issue of how government resources are allocated.

The burden on the private sector is also significant. When executives and operational staff are tied up for long periods responding to multiple probes, core operations suffer. Reports say headquarters functions have been disrupted and field operations affected. If the ripple effects of correcting corporate wrongdoing spread to jobs, suppliers and small businesses, the cost ultimately lands on society.

The issue also risks escalating beyond a domestic dispute. Some foreign investors have reportedly raised complaints with the U.S. Trade Representative about the Korean government’s response and have mentioned the possibility of an investor-state dispute settlement claim. The government says its actions are non-discriminatory but the risk of dampening investor sentiment in global markets cannot be dismissed.

This is not an argument to halt investigations. It is an argument about whether the scope, intensity and scale of resources committed are appropriate. If the core concerns are a data breach and possible fair-trade violations, a more focused, clearly led investigation by the responsible authorities may have been sufficient. Overlapping probes and inter-agency competition can blur accountability and reduce administrative efficiency.

What is needed is not a high-profile crackdown for its own sake but an investigative system that balances fairness with efficiency.

Catching bedbugs is necessary. But to avoid burning down the whole thatched cottage, officials must first decide where to apply pressure and how much. Corporate wrongdoing should be corrected, but the administrative and economic costs consumed in the process also deserve scrutiny.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260127010012533