A new lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is shedding light on what it calls a “massive-scale” racial profiling campaign carried out by federal immigration agents in Minnesota.
The legal action paints a disturbing picture of civil rights violations and aggressive enforcement tactics, largely impacting Somali and Latino communities. The lawsuit also places these actions in the broader context of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, calling it unprecedented and deeply harmful.
ACLU Lawsuit: Widespread Racial Profiling in Minnesota
The class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court, names several federal agencies, including:
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- U.S. Border Patrol
According to the complaint, agents have been randomly stopping, arresting, and detaining people based solely on race or perceived ethnicity—regardless of immigration status or citizenship.
The ACLU accuses the federal government of violating constitutional rights, particularly those of Somali and Latino residents, in what it describes as a police-state-style operation.
The Case of Mubashir Khalif Hussen
One of the most striking stories in the lawsuit involves Mubashir Khalif Hussen, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen of Somali descent. On December 10, Hussen was getting lunch when federal agents in an unmarked vehicle reportedly:
- Grabbed him without explanation
- Forced him into a nearby restaurant
- Dragged him back outside into the snow
- Placed him in a headlock
Despite repeatedly telling the agents that he was a U.S. citizen and asking to retrieve his driver’s license and phone, agents allegedly ignored him. Even after his supervisor presented a copy of his passport card, they reportedly refused to release him.
Instead, they drove him to another location before transferring him to the ICE field office at Fort Snelling, where he was released without any charges or immigration action. He was allegedly told to walk back seven miles in freezing temperatures.
In a separate incident, Hussen says he was pepper-sprayed in the face by agents after filming them from a public sidewalk.
The Bigger Picture: Trump Administration’s Minnesota Operation
The lawsuit is part of growing backlash against a federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which began shortly after former President Donald Trump publicly referred to the state’s large Somali population as “garbage.”
Federal authorities launched what they claim is the largest immigration operation in U.S. history, deploying over 2,000 agents to Minnesota alone. The operation includes:
- Surprise traffic stops
- Arrests without warrants or criminal charges
- Military-style tactics and gear
Recent incidents include:
- The fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent
- The shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant during a traffic stop
- Peaceful protests erupting in cities across the state
- Scattered clashes and unrest, leading to heightened tensions
The president has even threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a move that could bring active-duty military or National Guard troops into civilian neighborhoods—a controversial tactic rarely used in modern times.
Claims of Racial Targeting and Constitutional Violations
The ACLU argues that federal agents are using racial profiling to carry out arrests, stopping people based on skin color, language, and clothing—not actual evidence or warrants. These actions, the lawsuit claims, violate:
- Fourth Amendment (protection from unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection under the law)
- Civil rights statutes barring discrimination by government agencies
So far, most of the arrests made during these operations involve people with no criminal records, according to government data cited in the complaint.
Federal Government Response
The Trump administration continues to defend its actions, saying that:
- The sweeps are “targeted” and necessary
- Local sanctuary policies block cooperation between police and immigration officials
- Federal enforcement is needed to fill the gap
Still, critics argue that the tactics being used mirror those of authoritarian regimes, with random sweeps, unmarked vehicles, and aggressive use of force—especially in communities of color.
