Judge reinforces order protecting Minnesota refugees from detention

MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — A federal judge scolded the Trump administration Wednesday, calling its sweeping refugee operation in Minnesota an unlawful, illogical overreach that ignores decades of immigration law and policy.

In a 66-page blistering rebuke of the government’s actions, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim flatly opposed any need for the Homeland Security operation that he said is tearing apart the American Dream for thousands of lawful refugees.

“Defendants seek to transform a system built on promised opportunities and freedom into one of uncertainty and indefinite confinement,” the Bill Clinton appointee said. “The court will not allow those who relied on this nation’s promise of safety to be met instead with handcuffs. The Constitution requires steadiness, fidelity to statute, and respect for promises made. The rule of law demands no less.”

Tunheim ruled that, despite a DHS-led attempt to reinterpret existing policy, federal statute does not give the Trump administration any authority to indefinitely arrest and detain refugees who pose no security risk and were “thoroughly vetted” for lawful entry into the U.S.

“The court will not allow federal authorities to use a new and erroneous statutory interpretation to terrorize refugees who immigrated to this country under the promise they would be welcomed and allowed to live in peace, far away from the persecution they fled.”

Friday’s injunction follows a January temporary restraining order and bars the federal government from arresting or detaining refugees who have not adjusted to lawful permanent resident status and have not been charged with any ground for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The order targets “Operation PARRIS,” a DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services initiative launched in early January to “reexamine” the legal status of roughly 5,600 Minnesota refugees who have not yet transitioned to permanent residency.

Under the initiative, the government claims authority to arrest and indefinitely detain such refugees for “inspection and examination” related to further admission into the United States.

The Advocates for Human Rights — which brought the class action — and Tunheim rejected the government’s claim that it can warrantlessly and indefinitely detain lawfully admitted refugees.

“Why subject them to warrantless arrests, place them in shackles, and transport them to distant detention facilities, facilities whose conditions likely resemble the refugee camps they once lived in, simply to conduct the required one-year interview?” Tunheim said in Friday’s ruling.

The Advocates also say some released refugees have been left in “far-flung locations” and forced to find their own way back to Minnesota.

A central dispute in the case is how to interpret a decades-old federal statute stating that refugees who have not obtained permanent resident status after one year shall “return or be returned” to DHS custody.

That same law bars refugees from applying for permanent residency until they have lived in the United States for one year.

Tunheim focused on the statute’s “one-year” language, rejecting the government’s reading as giving DHS authority to seize a refugee “the moment the clock strikes midnight on the 366th day.”

The government maintains that the statute authorizes arrest and detention, but Tunheim has repeatedly rejected that reading as nonsensical, questioning why refugees who pose no safety or flight risk would need to be detained.

“Why would our government adopt a policy under which refugees — who have been thoroughly vetted, lawfully admitted to the United States, and resettled in communities with government support — are subject to arrest and detention the moment that one year has passed since their lawful arrival,” Tunheim said in the ruling. “The government has offered no legitimate rationale or legal authority to justify their indefinite detention.”

Tunheim also cited the Refugee Act of 1980, noting that it was designed to allow refugees to live peacefully in the United States, with the hope of achieving the “American Dream.”

He said he would not allow the government to overturn 45 years of agency practice or dismantle a system intended to offer refuge and opportunity to those seeking a better life.

“The new policy turns the refugees’ American Dream into a dystopian nightmare,” Tunheim said in the ruling. “That promise was not symbolic. It was concrete. It meant the opportunity to work, to worship, to raise children without fear, and to build a future under the protection of American law. Stability — not more fear — was the commitment.”