federal judge

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge Friday extended an order protecting refugees in Minnesota who are lawfully in the U.S. from being arrested and deported, saying a Trump administration policy turns the “American Dream into a dystopian nightmare.”

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim granted a motion by advocates for refugees to convert a temporary restraining order that he issued in January into a more permanent preliminary injunction while the case develops.

The order applies only in Minnesota. But the implications of a new national policy on refugees that the Department of Homeland Security announced Feb. 18 were a major part of the discussion at a hearing held by the judge the next day.

“Minnesota refugees can now live their lives without fear that their own government will snatch them off the street and imprison them far from loved ones,” Kimberly Grano, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, told the Associated Press.

The Trump administration asserts that it has the right to arrest potentially tens of thousands of refugees across the U.S. who entered the country legally but don’t yet have green cards. A new Homeland Security memo interprets immigration law to say that refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. so that their applications can be reviewed.

The judge expressed disbelief in a 66-page opinion.

“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 said.

He said the U.S. decades ago promised refugees fleeing persecution that they could build a new life after rigorous background checks.

“We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream,” Tunheim wrote. “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.”

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement Friday night that the ruling was “yet another lawless and activist order from a federal judge” and that the Trump administration expected to be “vindicated in court.”

“USCIS is committed to rooting out fraud and protecting the public safety and national security interests of the American people by screening and vetting aliens,” the statement said.

Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers said during a court hearing last week that the government should have the right to arrest refugees one year after entering the U.S., but he also indicated that would not always happen.

The judge noted that one refugee in the case, identified as D. Doe, was arrested in January after being told that someone had struck his car.

“He was immediately flown to Texas, where he was interrogated about his refugee status. He was kept in ‘shackles and handcuffs’ for sixteen hours. D. Doe was ultimately released on the streets of Texas, left to find his way back to Minnesota,” Tunheim said.

Karnowski and White write for the Associated Press and reported from Minneapolis and Detroit, respectively. AP writer Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.