Minnesota cities are taking aim at masked federal agents after a St. Paul ICE raid left a U.S. citizen detained at gunpoint and standing outside in his underwear in below-freezing temperatures.
City leaders in Minneapolis and St. Paul began debating local ordinances Jan. 21 that would limit masked federal law enforcement activity after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executed a warrant Jan. 19 at a St. Paul residence. They detained a U.S. citizen at gunpoint and escorted him outside in freezing weather.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated agents were targeting two individuals the agency described as sexual predators tied to the property and held all occupants under standard safety protocol.
That individual was later reported to be ChongLy "Scott" Thao, who told the Associated Press that his daughter-in-law woke him up from a nap and warned that ICE agents were banging on the door of his residence. He reportedly told her not to open it though masked agents, guns drawn, forced their way into the home.
I was shaking. They didn't show any warrant; they just broke down the door. - ChongLy "Scott" Thao
The incident has sparked constitutional questions about search authority, identification procedures, and how far cities can go in regulating federal officers operating within their limits. That inclydes long-running limits on home entry and consent under the Fourth Amendment.
DHS Pushes Back Against ICE Attacks
Federal officials rejected claims that agents entered the home without legal authority and maintain the operation followed established protocol.
DHS law enforcement officers were executing a warrant. Through surveillance and intelligence information, law enforcement concluded these two individuals had ties to the property. - DHS spokesperson to Military.com.
DHS did not specify whether the warrant was judicially signed by a federal judge or issued administratively under immigration authority. Civil liberties organizations have argued that only a judicial warrant permits forced entry into a private residence under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Additional details came from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, who stated the U.S. citizen detained inside the residence matched the description of the targets.
DHS law enforcement officers were executing a warrant. The U.S. citizen who was in the property when officers were executing the warrant refused to be fingerprinted or identified. He matched the description of the targets. As with any law enforcement agency, it is standard protocol to hold all individuals in a house of an operation for safety of the public and law enforcement. -- Tricia McLaughlin
Family members disputed that account and questioned whether a judicial warrant was presented before agents entered the property. They also challenged the claim that identification was refused.
Military.com reached out to ICE, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment. ICE referred questions to DHS.
Cities Move to Limit Masked Federal Agents
Debate has shifted from public backlash to policy drafting.
Council members in Minneapolis and St. Paul began outlining proposals that would prohibit federal officers from wearing face coverings while conducting operations inside city limits, except in narrowly defined tactical situations such as active threats or undercover work.
Early discussions have focused on requiring visible identification, badge numbers and clear agency disclosure during enforcement actions. A transparency debate has also surfaced around body-worn camera policies for ICE operations.
Supporters argued masked agents undermine public trust and complicate accountability when complaints are filed. They pointed to the Jan. 19 St. Paul raid as a catalyst for the push.
Opponents cautioned that any ordinance targeting federal officers could face immediate legal challenge under the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal authority overrides conflicting local law. Immigration enforcement authority rests with the federal government, and courts have historically limited local attempts to regulate federal operations.
Constitutional protections apply nationwide, though municipalities cannot materially interfere with the execution of federal warrants. Whether such ordinances could withstand court scrutiny may depend on how narrowly they are written and whether they regulate conduct without obstructing federal enforcement.
Military.com reached out to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and Gov. Tim Walz for comment.
Federal Immigration Surge Faces Growing Backlash
The St. Paul raid unfolded amid increased federal immigration enforcement activity in the Twin Cities in recent weeks.
Minnesota has also challenged the scope of the federal push in court, arguing agencies exceeded their authority during a broader surge.
Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU of Minnesota and the Immigration Law Center of Minnesota, argued that masked agents and early morning enforcement actions raise concerns about transparency and potential Fourth Amendment implications involving warrant execution standards, forced entry authority, and identity verification procedures inside private residences.
Debate now extends beyond a single St. Paul doorstep. City councils are examining whether local transparency requirements, such as visible identification and limits on face coverings, can be enacted without infringing on federal authority.
Immigration enforcement falls under federal jurisdiction, but constitutional protections governing searches and detentions apply nationwide.
If local ordinances advance, courts may determine whether municipalities can regulate aspects of how federal officers operate within city boundaries without materially interfering with federal enforcement. The outcome could shape similar debates in other jurisdictions confronting expanded federal immigration operations.
