First Amendment Analysis of Minnesota’s Lawsuit Against DHS

What events led to Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS?

But first, here's some background. There isn’t a single incident that led Minnesota officials to file this lawsuit. Rather, the lawsuit cites a series of events as evidence that the federal government is targeting the state and cities based on their political views and officials’ protected political speech.

Those events, according to the claims made in the lawsuit, include:

• In March 2025, the administration withheld FEMA funding from the state.
• In November 2025, the administration terminated the Temporary Protected Status immigration program for Somalis in Minnesota.
• In December 2025, the federal government began “Operation Metro Surge,” which put thousands of DHS agents, including ICE officers, in the Twin Cities metro area.
• Protests have occurred in response to these actions, which the lawsuit claims the government has unlawfully suppressed.
• On Jan. 7, 2026, Minneapolis resident Renee Good was shot and killed by a federal officer.
• “Operation Metro Surge” has led to many arrests in the Twin Cities.

What are the First Amendment claims in Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS?

First Amendment claims against the federal government are one part of Minnesota’s lawsuit. Other claims involve the authority of the federal government over state and local law enforcement under the Tenth Amendment and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Specific to the First Amendment, the state’s lawsuit claims the federal government engaged in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.

Retaliation

Under the First Amendment, government officials cannot retaliate against people for exercising their freedom of speech or other forms of expression. The U.S. Supreme Court has likewise held that First Amendment protection is “at its zenith” for core political speech.

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, the person filing the lawsuit must prove:

• They engaged in First Amendment-protected activity.
• That activity was subject to “material adverse action” (significant censorship, punishment, etc.) by the government.
• A causal connection exists between the First Amendment-protected activity and adverse government action — for example, establishing that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the government

The lawsuit alleges the federal government is retaliating against state and city officials’ protected political speech by opening investigations, ordering funding freezes, and issuing large penalties against the state, as well as sending federal law and immigration enforcement officials into the state and cities. The lawsuit also suggests these retaliatory acts impacted residents’ First Amendment-protected activity, such as protesting.

It claims this retaliation is in response to the political speech of state and city officials, like Gov. Tim Walz. Minnesota officials’ political speech has included criticizing Trump administration policies and condemning ICE activities.

In an effort to establish the required link between state and city officials’ First Amendment-protected political speech and the government’s alleged retaliation, the suit contends, “Defendants’ decision to target the Twin Cities with an unprecedent surge of federal agents has been motivated by a desire to retaliate against perceived political enemies rather than good faith immigration enforcement, public safety, or law enforcement concerns.”

Viewpoint discrimination

The First Amendment prohibits government officials from favoring one kind of speech over another. While not all speech is protected by the First Amendment — such as defamation, obscenity and true threats — the government can’t punish people’s speech because of the opinions being expressed. This is called viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has called an “egregious” form of content discrimination.

To win a viewpoint discrimination lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove:

• Their First Amendment-protected speech or expression was targeted by the government based on viewpoint (e.g., their perspective).
• The expression was targeted without a valid, viewpoint-neutral reason.

The suit claims the federal government has engaged in viewpoint discrimination against the state and the Twin Cities by sending increased immigration enforcement to those areas — but not to other areas with higher immigrant populations — because federal government officials don’t like the viewpoints “expressed by and policies adopted by … [Minnesota’s and the Twin City’s] elected leaders” — such as enacting “sanctuary” laws:

“While the President may disagree with some of the viewpoints that he attributes to Plaintiffs’ elected leaders, the First Amendment does not allow him to punish Plaintiffs — or their residents — based on those viewpoints.”

What happens next with Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS?

Key to prevailing in its First Amendment retaliation claim will be Minnesota’s ability to show the link between First Amendment-protected activity and adverse government action: In other words, the state will have to prove the government ramped up enforcement activities, among other alleged retaliatory acts, in the Twin Cities because it was retaliating against state and city officials’ political speech.

Prevailing in its viewpoint discrimination claim is simpler but still requires Minnesota to provide evidence DHS singled out Minnesota and the Twin Cities for disfavored treatment — increased immigration enforcement, in this case — because of state and city officials’ policies and views.

Should those, and its other claims, succeed, Minnesota is asking a judge to find the federal government’s surge of immigration agents in the state “unconstitutional and unlawful,” among other requests, including requiring federal immigration agents to wear and activate body cameras when agency policy allows.

Specific to First Amendment issues, the lawsuit also makes a connection between the claims of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination and residents’ protected First Amendment activities, claiming the federal government’s actions have provoked protests, which the government then illegally suppressed. Along those lines, the suit asks that federal agents be restrained from breaking up lawful protests and other First Amendment-protected activities and that agents not be allowed to use “physical force” against peaceful protesters.

The next step in the case will be for the federal government to present its view of the facts and legal arguments. It may also ask the district court to dismiss the case. The judge will then rule on whether the case — or at least some claims — can go forward to trial.

Scott A. Leadingham is a staff writer at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].

This article was compiled with contributions from Freedom Forum experts, including Vice President and First Amendment Expert Kevin Goldberg and First Amendment Specialist Alex Morey.