In a recent courtroom exchange, a federal judge in Minnesota challenged the Justice Department to clarify if the Trump administration’s stringent immigration measures were, in fact, an unconstitutional attempt to coerce state and local governments into aligning with its policies. This hearing took place amid rising tensions following the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and licensed gun owner, who was fatally shot multiple times after being disarmed on a Minneapolis street.

Presiding over the hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez expressed doubts regarding the federal government’s justification for deploying thousands of federal agents to the city. She also questioned her jurisdiction over halting “Operation Metro Surge,” irrespective of the motivations behind the federal initiative.

Earlier in the month, Minnesota filed a lawsuit requesting an immediate temporary restraining order to stop the federal troop surge while the case is deliberated. The state argued that the administration’s actions violated the 10th Amendment, which supports federalism, by attempting to impose Trump’s political objectives on Minnesota.

During the hearing, state attorneys called for an end to what they described as an “unlawful and unchecked invasion” of Minneapolis by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, as reported by Politico’s Kyle Cheney on social media.

Lindsey Middlecamp, serving as special counsel for Minnesota, contended that federal forces were causing widespread violence under the pretense of immigration law enforcement. She asserted that the actual intention was to undermine the state’s autonomy.

Middlecamp highlighted a letter Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to Gov. Tim Walz over the weekend that included a list of demands including rolling back its sanctuary city policies, turning over Medicaid and SNAP data, and granting the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division access to its voter rolls.

State attorney Brian Scott Carter did not mince words in describing Bondi’s letter to the court.

“It’s a shakedown letter,” he said, according to a report from Adam Klasfeld of All Rise News. “It’s a ransom note. That’s what you expect from someone who is extorting you.”

Carter emphasized that access to voter rolls had nothing to do with immigration, accusing the federal government of trying to “hijack the state’s legislative process” and “bend the state’s will to its own.”

“That is not allowed under the Constitution,” Carter told the court, according to Politico.

Carter went on to assert that administration had amassed “an army” in Minnesota to “stir the pot with conduct that is pervasive and includes illegal violent conduct,” adding, “the lawlessness we’ve seen, your honor, is jaw-dropping.”

Middlecamp argued the administration’s message effectively required the state to “change its laws and policies” or else “suffer invasion of mass armed forces.”

In addition to the letter, Minnesota’s attorneys also highlighted President Trump’s social media post from earlier this month in which he declared that “the day of reckoning & retribution” was coming in the state.

While Menendez was reportedly receptive to the state’s arguments, she also expressed concern over whether she could restrict the operation without encroaching on the executive branch’s authority to conduct constitutional immigration enforcement.

“You understand the federal government has a lot of power in this area, so I’m trying to figure out what principle you’re asking me to apply that will sort out legal federal law enforcement from this 10th Amendment argument,” Judge Menendez said to the state attorneys, per ABC News.

DOJ attorney Brantley Mayers reportedly described the state’s request as “staggering,” saying the court would essentially be “removing officers whom the president has concluded should be there to enforce federal immigration law.”

In outlining her skepticism, Menendez pondered whether the proper answer to the “flood of illegality” was to “fight each illegal act” individually, as opposed to asking her to halt the whole operation. She reportedly stated that “not all crises have a fix from a district court injunction.”

Despite the state’s request, Menendez did not issue an order at the end of the hearing.

“I do not intend in any way for the depth of my analysis or whatever time I take to write to be seen as a belief that this is unimportant,” she reportedly said. “It’s because it’s extremely important that I’m doing everything I can to get it right.”