The Justice Department and human rights advocates squared off in federal court Wednesday over whether federal law can justify the detention of lawfully admitted refugees, in a case that could affect thousands of immigrants across Minnesota.
U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim heard arguments over whether to dissolve a temporary restraining order that has halted a federal operation targeting refugees for arrest and detention. The operation, known as "Operation PARRIS," was launched by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in early January.
Department of Justice attorney Brantley Mayers, appearing by Zoom, urged the court to lift the restraining order, arguing that federal law gives the government authority to take refugees into custody. Mayers said the operation represents mandatory enforcement of federal law and claimed the restraining order prevents the government from fulfilling its duties.
"The federal operation is an extension of a congressional mandate allowing for the arrests and detention of refugees," Mayers told the court.
The Advocates for Human Rights attorney E. Michelle Drake countered that the government's policy transforms what should be a routine administrative process into prolonged detention for lawfully admitted refugees. Drake argued the operation violates the rights of refugees who entered the country legally.
Operation PARRIS targets approximately 5,600 refugees in Minnesota who have not yet transitioned to permanent residency status. The initiative is designed to "reexamine" the legal status of these individuals, according to government officials.
The legal dispute centers on interpretation of a federal statute stating that refugees who have not acquired resident status after one year in the country "shall return or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection."
Mayers argued the statute's language can only reasonably be interpreted as authorizing arrests. However, Judge Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, expressed skepticism about the government's reading of the law.
"Are you saying that every administration has been in violation of the law for 45 years?" Tunheim asked, referring to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established the modern framework for U.S. refugee admissions and treatment.
The 1980 law treats "inspection" as a routine administrative step toward obtaining a green card, not necessarily grounds for prolonged detention. Tunheim questioned why the government would choose detention when other, less harmful methods exist to accomplish their stated goals.
Drake highlighted what she characterized as a fundamental flaw in the government's logic. Under federal law, refugees cannot have their status adjusted to "Lawful Permanent Resident" until they have been in the United States for at least one year. This creates a catch-22 situation where the government uses the one-year milestone as grounds for arrest, even though refugees are legally prohibited from completing the status adjustment process before that time.
"Their interpretation authorizes the warrantless arrests of refugees who have failed to have their status adjusted," Drake argued, noting the inherent contradiction in the government's position.
The case reflects broader tensions over immigration enforcement policies and the treatment of refugees who have been legally admitted to the United States. Minnesota has a significant refugee population, particularly from Somalia and other East African countries.
The temporary restraining order issued by Judge Tunheim has effectively halted detention operations under Operation PARRIS while the court considers the legal arguments. The restraining order represents a significant procedural victory for immigrant rights advocates, though the underlying legal questions remain unresolved.
The Justice Department maintains that the operation represents proper enforcement of existing federal immigration law. Government attorneys argue that Congress intended to give immigration authorities broad discretion in managing refugee status transitions.
Human rights advocates contend the operation represents an aggressive interpretation of federal law that criminalizes what should be routine immigration processes. They argue the policy creates unnecessary hardship for refugees who followed proper legal channels to enter the United States.
The outcome of the case could have implications beyond Minnesota, potentially affecting how federal immigration authorities interpret their detention powers regarding refugees nationwide. Similar operations could be implemented in other states with significant refugee populations if the government's legal interpretation prevails.
Judge Tunheim has not indicated when he will rule on the government's motion to dissolve the restraining order. The court will need to balance competing interpretations of federal immigration law while considering the immediate impact on thousands of refugees currently living in Minnesota.
The case highlights ongoing debates over immigration enforcement priorities and the extent of federal authority to detain individuals who have been lawfully admitted to the United States as refugees.