Earlier today, Trump “border czar” Tom Homan announced that Operation Metro Surge – the massive deployment of some 3000 federal immigration enforcement officers to Minnesota – is about to end. Significantly, it is ending earlier than most expected, and without having achieved the stated goal of forcing Minnesota state and local governments to end their “sanctuary” policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
It seems likely that Trump gave up because the policy met with extensive resistance and has become highly unpopular. His public opinion approval ratings on immigration policy have plummeted. That setback for the administration occurred in large part because of a combination of legal and political resistance.
Courts ruled against the administration on some of its more blatantly illegal detentions, such as those targeting refugees. Federal Judge Katherine Menendez refused to grant a preliminary injunction in a Tenth Amendment suit filed by state and local governments, but made clear that the plaintiffs might well ultimately prevail. Meanwhile, a massive political mobilization helped draw attention to the administration’s cruel, abusive, and illegal tactics, increasing public revulsion and opposition.
In a May 2025 article for The UnPopulist, I argued that effective resistance to Trump’s many unjust and unconstitutional power grabs requires a combination of litigation and political action, exploiting synergies between the two. Litigation can help block unconstituitional policies, and highlight abuses. That can help stimulate public opposition and mobilization, which can in turn pave the way for more victories in court, as judges will often feel more able to rule against the administration if they believe they will have the backing of public and elite opinion. Judicial victories can then stimulate additional political mobilization, and so on. As noted in my particle, historical examples ranging from the Civil Rights Movement to struggles for constitutional property rights indicate this dynamic can be very effective.
Something like this dynamic seems to been at work in Minnesota. Abuses highlighted by court cases helped stimulate public opposition, and judges may be more willing to rule against abuses, given widespread public support. In particular, litigation likely helped more people realize that Trump’s detention deportation efforts were not targeting criminals and the “worst of the worst,” but instead primarily going after people who were living and working peacefully, contributing to their communities – including even many who were in the country legally, such as numerous refugees and asylum seekers. The ultimately successful litigation over the heartrending case of 5-year-old Liam Ramos and his family (who had an asylum application pending), was particularly notable in driving these points home.
These dynamics obviously not the only factors in the setback for Trump. But they helped. Going forward, advocates for migrant rights and other related causes would do well to learn from the Minnesota experience, and from other examples compiled in my UnPopulist article.
Obviously, the setback for Trump here is unlikely to completely end this administration’s often cruel and illegal immigration policies. Nor has it reversed all the massive harm done by Operation Metro Surge. As Judge Menendez noted in her ruling, “Operation Metro Surge has had…. profound and even heartbreaking, consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans,” including the killing of two citizens by federal agents, large-scale “racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions,” and “negative impacts…. in almost every arena of daily life.” There also has been no accountability for the federal officials responsible for these outrages.
But the dual strategy of litigation and political action has at least mitigated the damage. And it can be used again in at least some situations going forward.
As noted in my UnPopulist article, this kind of strategy does have noteworthy limitations:
It is particularly important to recognize the limits of public attention and knowledge. Survey data shows most voters pay little attention to politics, and often don’t know even basic information about government and public policy—including judicial decisions. This makes it hard to attract public attention to more than a few legal battles at any given time. That dynamic limits the number of situations where advocates can count on judicial decisions, even important ones with sympathetic facts, moving public opinion….
Some complex legal issues, moreover, are difficult or impossible to present to the public in a way that enables people to grasp their significance. That doesn’t mean litigation in such cases is a bad idea. But it does mean it cannot rely on a boost from mobilizing public opinion.
In addition, while litigation efforts promoting popular results can help mobilize public opinion in support of a cause, litigation promoting unpopular ones can have the opposite effect….
Despite these constraints, utilizing synergies between litigation and political action can often be an effective strategy for curbing abuses of government power and strengthening constitutional protections. Minnesota is a notable additional case in point. We would do well to learn from it, as there are likely to be more opportunities to make use of the lesson.
