Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A federal judge on Jan. 28 blocked a Trump administration policy initiative to reconsider the legal status of the roughly 5,600 lawful refugees living in Minnesota.
In a court order, Judge John Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota temporarily granted a class action request to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy initiative dubbed “Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening.”
That operation was announced by DHS earlier this month, and DHS characterized it as “a sweeping initiative reexamining thousands of refugee cases through new background checks.”
Under the law, a lawfully admitted refugee must undergo an additional process to gain lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The DHS operation, according to the court order, concerns refugees who have not yet become lawful permanent residents.
In a lawsuit, five unnamed individuals, joined by The Advocates for Human Rights, an activist group, claimed that as part of the operation, DHS had “implemented a practice of arresting and detaining—without notice or warrant—individuals previously screened and admitted into the United States as refugees.”
They name Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, among others in DHS, as respondents.
In his initial ruling, Tunheim expressed doubt about the legality of the administration policy. He wrote that refugees undergo extensive vetting by multiple government agencies to enter the United States, and he cited statutory restrictions on arresting or deporting refugees who haven’t yet gained lawful permanent residency.
The temporary restraining order grants two motions requested by the plaintiffs.
The first bars the government “from arresting or detaining any member of the putative class [non-lawful permanent resident refugees] in Minnesota on the basis that they are a refugee who has not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.”
It also orders “the immediate return and release of the members of a putative subclass consisting of those refugees who are presently detained under the policy.”
Tunheim said that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect until he could rule on the requested preliminary injunction.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy, wrote in a post on X responding to the ruling, “The judicial sabotage of democracy is unending.”
In the court order, Tunheim wrote, “This case involves a stark shift in Defendants’ treatment of individuals who have been admitted to the United States as ’refugees,’ replacing prior agency policy with abrupt arrest and detention—often without a warrant or notice.”
Tunheim cited legal statutes related to the matter at hand and said that Congress has imposed restraints on the government’s authority to commence removal proceedings after an individual has obtained either refugee or lawful permanent resident status.
Specifically, the law prevents standards of “inadmissibility” from being applied to those who have already been admitted, unless they were ineligible at the time of admission. Instead, DHS must use “deportability” standards set by statute, which lay out specific crimes and other criteria that make an individual eligible for deportation.
“[Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] longstanding agency guidance has been that failure to obtain [lawful permanent resident] status, by itself, is not grounds for removal nor is it a ‘proper basis for detaining them,’” Tunheim wrote.
Tunheim’s order is temporary and could be reduced in scope or altered later. If the court rules against the administration, the administration could appeal the ruling in a higher court.
DHS did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Loading recommendations…
