Federal district judge John R. Tunheim issued a lengthy ruling on Friday, February 27, forbidding the federal government from arresting and detaining Minnesota refugees who have no grounds for removal and are awaiting their green cards. CT has covered in Minnesota the arrests of Christian refugees and the stories of others who have been living in hiding as a result of this historically unprecedented federal policy.
This injunction applies only in Minnesota; refugee advocates have said tens of thousands of refugees could face arrest nationally. The government has not yet appealed the judge’s ruling, but it had argued in a February 18 memo that it could indefinitely detain any refugees in the US who have not yet received green cards (lawful permanent resident status).
The full ruling is here, and the government’s memo that argues its authority for indefinite refugee detention is available here.
Excerpts from Tunheim’s ruling:
When the clock strikes 12:00 a.m. on the 366th day after a refugee was lawfully admitted to the United States, according to the Government, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) gives Department of Homeland Security officials the power to arrest and detain that refugee with no limits on the length of detention. Because § 1159(a) provides no such power, the Court will issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from arresting or detaining refugees in Minnesota on the basis that have not yet been adjusted to lawful permanent resident status—which, by law, cannot occur until one year has passed. The 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.
The Government’s position flatly contradicts the plain meaning of § 1159(a) and contravenes forty-five years of agency practice.
Decades ago, as a nation, we made a solemn promise to refugees fleeing persecution: that after rigorous vetting, they would be welcomed to the United States and given the opportunity to rebuild their lives. We assured them that they could care for their families, earn a living, contribute to their communities, and live in peace here in the United States. We promised them the hope that one day they could achieve the American Dream.
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.
D. Doe, a refugee, was at home with his family on January 11, 2026, when a man in plain clothes knocked on the door. D. Doe answered the door, and the man told him that he had hit D. Doe’s car—but his description did not match D. Doe’s car.
The man left, and returned a few minutes later, this time describing the correct car. When D. Doe went outside to check the damage, he was surrounded by armed men and arrested. After being taken to a detention center in Minnesota, 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.
[O]ne refugee—a junior in high school—was arrested and detained after she was pulled over on her way to school. She told the ICE agents that she was a minor and provided them with her driver’s license, which showed that she was a minor. ICE agents handcuffed her and forced her to leave the vehicle on the road. ICE agents told her that she was going to be sent to Texas or Chicago. ICE then learned that a judge had ordered them not to transport her outside of Minnesota, and an ICE agent had her call her parents to come get her. The ICE agent told her to tell her family that if they came to get her, ICE would send them all to Texas. Her family decided not to pick her up. At that point, ICE took her to a hotel where she spent the night in [the] same room with two ICE agents. Although she had her own bed, she did not have her own room. The next day, she was released and allowed to leave with her lawyer.
[T]he Refugee Detention Policy likely violates substantive due process.
Defendants’ reading of § 1159(a)(1) would give DHS the authority to detain unadjusted refugees indefinitely—a result the Supreme Court rejected in the context of noncitizens who have already been ordered removed.
[T]he record at this stage reflects that refugees subject to Defendants’ Refugee Detention Policy have been—or face a substantial likelihood of being—arrested, handcuffed and shackled, detained, and transported out-of-state away from family and counsel. The Court therefore concludes that Defendants’ sweeping and severe deprivations of liberty are not narrowly tailored to the interests they assert.
The protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to arrests of noncitizens.
Importantly, refugees—who have been vetted and admitted to the country—commit no crime or removable offense in failing to obtain a green card one day after they become eligible to do so; nor do they lose their status as lawfully admitted to the United States.
Defendants argue—as they did in their motion to dissolve the TRO—that the balance-of-the-harm and the public interest factors favors weigh in favor of Defendants because a preliminary injunction itself would inflict irreparable injury on Defendants.
Given the unlawfulness of DHS’s Refugee Detention Policy, the public interest is not served by allowing Defendants to carry out such policy.
Indeed, Defendants’ enforcement of an expensive and expansive Refugee Detention Policy likely hinders Defendants’ lawful pursuit of serious immigration violations.
The Government’s actions in this case beg the question: Why? Why would our Government adopt a policy under which refugees—who have been thoroughly vetted, lawfully admitted to the United States, and resettled in communities with Government support—are subject to arrest and detention the moment that one year has passed since their lawful arrival? Why subject them to warrantless arrests, place them in shackles, and transport them to distant detention facilities—facilities whose conditions likely resemble the refugee camps they once lived in—simply to conduct the required one-year interview that precedes adjustment to lawful permanent resident status? Why? The Government suggests that they are looking for terrorists, but there is not a shred of evidence in the record that the Named Plaintiffs or the putative Class they seek to represent pose serious national security risks. The Government suggests that prior Administrations did not vet refugees thoroughly enough. But again, there is no evidence in the record or elsewhere that suggests that prior Administrations were deficient in evaluating refugees for admission.
Refugees are not illegal immigrants who have crossed our borders without permission.
The refugees covered by this injunction have not been charged with any ground of removability, nor is there reason to believe that they would evade the interview and inspection required to obtain lawful permanent resident status.
The Government has offered no legitimate rationale or legal authority to justify their indefinite detention.
In the Refugee Act, this Nation extended a helping hand to those escaping persecution. We made a simple promise: pass the vetting, follow the law, and you will be given a chance at a new beginning in safety. That promise was not symbolic. It was concrete. It meant the opportunity to work, to worship, to raise children without fear, and to build a future under the protection of American law. Stability—not more fear—was the commitment.
The Government’s proposed new interpretation upends that commitment without clear authorization from Congress and rests on constitutionally precarious grounds. Defendants seek to transform a system built on promised opportunities and freedom into one of uncertainty and indefinite confinement. Until the legality of this dramatic shift is addressed at trial, the Court will not allow those who relied on this Nation’s promise of safety to be met instead with handcuffs. The Constitution requires steadiness, fidelity to statute, and respect for promises made. The rule of law demands no less.
