Judge Questions Federal Agent Deployment in Minneapolis, Citing Policy Influence Concerns
U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez has questioned the Justice Department regarding a potential Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the federal government's deployment of agents in Minneapolis.
During proceedings, Judge Menendez asked federal lawyer Brantley Mayers about the purpose of the federal agent surge. She specifically inquired if its intent was to influence state and city policies. Mayers responded that the federal goal was to enforce federal law.
The Bondi Letter and Policy Alteration
However, Judge Menendez referenced statements from former Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. A letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) indicated that federal agents would be withdrawn if the state provided voting records.
The judge questioned the interpretation of this letter, asking if it implied that the agent presence would cease if state or city policies were altered.
Tenth Amendment and "Anti-Commandeering" Concerns
Mayers contended that even if policies changed and the surge relaxed, it would not constitute a Tenth Amendment issue, asserting the stated reason for the surge was valid federal law enforcement. Judge Menendez then posed a hypothetical:
"If the government explicitly stated, 'We are here until and unless you change your policies,' would that present a Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering problem?"
Mayers responded negatively to this hypothetical.
Executive Comments and Agent Limits
The judge also inquired about former President Trump's comments, specifically:
"Minnesota, your day of retribution is here."
Mayers stated that such comments do not negate ongoing legitimate law enforcement activities. Judge Menendez further asked if there was a limit to the number of agents the administration could deploy. Mayers did not directly answer, reiterating that it was not a Tenth Amendment issue.
"Quid Pro Quo" and Judicial Means
Judge Menendez inquired whether the executive branch was attempting to achieve goals through force that it could not achieve through judicial means, referencing the Bondi letter. She expressed concern that Attorney General Bondi’s letter referenced three matters currently subject to pending litigation before her court.
The judge also cited a statement from Tom Homan, former executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), who stated:
"If you want less officers on the street, then let us in the jails."
Judge Menendez questioned whether the concept of "law enforcement" was being used broadly, stating that the clarity of any "quid pro quo" seemed disregarded. She noted that she had various quotes in the record and asked what evidence supported the assertion that the surge addressed harms caused by policies.
Mayers maintained that the agent deployment was unrelated to a coercion campaign aimed at changing state policies.