S.M. v. Blanche
S.M. v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Christian A.S.C. v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-01429
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Judge Tunheim closed three immigration detention cases — S.M., Christian A.S.C., and Riky A.M.L. v. Blanche — after the government resolved all property disputes arising from Operation Metro Surge arrests.
Individuals arrested and detained during the federal 'Operation Metro Surge' immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota who had personal property — including identification documents, phones, work authorization documents, and tools — confiscated by the government and not promptly returned after their release from custody.
What happened
In S.M. v. Blanche, Christian A.S.C. v. Blanche, and Riky A.M.L. v. Blanche, three individuals who had been arrested and detained during a large federal immigration enforcement operation called 'Operation Metro Surge' in Minnesota sought court orders — called petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal tool to challenge unlawful detention — challenging the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. After the court ordered each petitioner released from custody, the government failed to return personal property that had been seized at the time of arrest, including identification documents, phones, and other belongings. The court held a consolidated hearing in March 2026 to address the government's ongoing failure to comply with its orders to return property, and directed the government to facilitate property replacement, reimburse claims submitted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (a federal law allowing people to sue the government for damages), and return any property that was found.
Following the March 2026 hearing and order, the parties kept the court updated on the government's efforts to resolve the property issues. In S.M.'s case, her belongings were eventually returned, she filed a Federal Tort Claims Act claim related to costs she incurred while her phone was withheld after her release, and the government paid her. In Christian A.S.C.'s case, his identification documents were eventually returned after he had been without them for weeks, he filed a Federal Tort Claims Act claim related to his detention, and the government paid him. In Riky A.M.L.'s case, the government returned his social security card, facilitated replacement of his work authorization document, and paid his Federal Tort Claims Act claim for tools he lost during his detention.
Judge Tunheim found that because all disputes relating to the petitioners' property had been resolved and no ongoing compliance issues remained, the three cases — Civil Nos. 26-639, 26-778, and 26-1429 — should be closed and judgment entered. The court stated it remains troubled that its intervention was necessary to compel the government to comply with its orders and expressed regret about the hardship imposed on the petitioners by the government.
The detailed version
- S.M. v. Blanche · No. 0:26-cv-01429
- John Tunheim
- June 9, 2026
Background
These three consolidated cases arose out of 'Operation Metro Surge,' a large federal immigration enforcement operation during which more than 3,000 federal immigration agents were deployed across Minnesota beginning in late 2025 and continuing into early 2026. Thousands of Minnesota residents were arrested, detained, and in many instances rapidly transferred to detention facilities outside the state. The opinion notes that over 1,000 lawsuits were filed challenging these detentions.
Each of the three petitioners — S.M., Christian A.S.C., and Riky A.M.L. — filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus (a legal mechanism to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment or detention) in federal district court. After the court ordered each petitioner released from custody, the government (the respondents, consisting of federal officials including the Acting Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) failed to return personal property confiscated from petitioners at the time of their arrest, including identification documents, phones, and other items.
March 2026 Hearing and Order
On March 5, 2026, the court held a consolidated hearing for these three cases and two related ones (J.B.C.O. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-424, and Rosmary N.A. v. Easterwood, Civ. No. 26-832) to address the government's continued failure to comply with orders to return property. Each petitioner had counsel present. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota and a representative from the St. Paul Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement appeared for the government. At the hearing, the government indicated it would continue searching for petitioners' property and committed to facilitating any claims for lost property under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the federal statute that generally permits individuals to seek compensation from the government for certain wrongful acts by federal employees.
Following the hearing, the court issued an order on March 6, 2026 directing the government to: (1) facilitate the replacement of any missing employment authorization documents; (2) facilitate and reimburse all FTCA claims submitted by petitioners for lost property; and (3) return any physical property ultimately found. The court also warned that absent prompt resolution of property claims, it would issue a further order to show cause regarding the imposition of daily civil fines to ensure compliance. A follow-up hearing was scheduled for 30 days after the March 6 order. The court twice continued further proceedings as the parties reported on the government's remediation efforts.
Resolution of Each Case
S.M. (Civil No. 26-639) S.M.'s personal belongings were eventually returned. She submitted an FTCA claim related to costs arising from her detention, including costs attributable to not having access to her cell phone (which was not returned until weeks after her release). The parties advised the court that S.M. received payment on that claim.
Christian A.S.C. (Civil No. 26-778) Christian A.S.C.'s missing identification documents were eventually located and returned, but only after he had been without any identity document or driver's license for weeks. He also submitted an FTCA claim related to his detention, and the parties advised the court that he received payment.
Riky A.M.L. (Civil No. 26-1429) The government returned Riky A.M.L.'s social security card and facilitated the replacement of his employment authorization document. He filed an FTCA claim seeking compensation for tools lost by the government — tools he needed to perform his job. The parties advised the court that he received payment.
Disposition
Because all disputes relating to the government's compliance with the court's orders had been resolved in each of the three cases, Judge Tunheim ordered Civil Cases 26-639, 26-778, and 26-1429 closed and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The court also included a notable statement of concern: it expressed that it 'remains troubled that its intervention was necessary to compel compliance with its orders, and to ensure the safety, liberty, and well-being of persons who were subject to unlawful arrest and detention,' and stated that it 'regrets the hardship imposed on Petitioners by the United States Government.'
Related Cases The opinion notes that two related cases — J.B.C.O. v. Bondi (Civ. No. 26-424) and Rosmary N.A. v. Easterwood (Civ. No. 26-832) — had already reached resolution and had judgment entered prior to this order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.