Demonstrators gather outside of the Henry Whipple Federal Building, shouting at federal vehicles and recording their plates Saturday, Jan. 17, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

A Minneapolis-based human rights group is suing the Department of Homeland Security, accusing DHS officials and agents of illegally and systematically preventing detained immigrants from meeting with their lawyers.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court of Minnesota, was brought on behalf of the Advocates for Human Rights and a St. Paul woman referred to by the initials “L.H.M.”

According to the complaint, L.H.M., who has lived in Minnesota since 2019 and has a pending asylum claim, was arrested Monday after a routine check-in at ICE’s Office of Intensive Supervision in Bloomington.

After L.H.M.’s family contacted her attorney, the lawyer immediately travelled to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building but was unilaterally refused access to L.H.M.

L.H.M. recently underwent cranial surgery, the lawsuit states, and “has significant medical needs that may be severely adversely affected by detention conditions or involuntary transfer out of state.”

According to the claim, federal agents at the Whipple Building — and at least one ICE attorney — have repeatedly told frustrated lawyers that “no visitation between detainees and attorneys is or has ever been permitted at Whipple.”

“This is false,” the complaint continues. “Whipple has rooms labeled ‘ERO Visitation,’ where attorneys have met with clients held at Whipple for years.”

Nowadays, when lawyers attempt to arrange visits at Whipple, phone calls and emails allegedly go unanswered.

According to the suit, one lawyer was recently threatened with arrest at the Whipple Building, despite having received prior permission from agency officials. Another attorney attempting to speak to a client was “confronted by six armed security personnel, one of whom said, ‘We’re not having a debate here, turn your car around and get the hell out of here.’”

The lawsuit asserts claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

A spokesperson for Homeland Security responded: “Any allegations people detained by ICE do not have access to attorneys are false. Illegal aliens in the Whipple Federal Building have access to phones they can use to contact their families and lawyers. Additionally, ICE gives all illegal aliens arrested a court-approved list of free or low-cost attorneys. All detainees receive full due process.”

(Homeland Security has a burgeoning record of providing false information to the public, as detailed in a recent Stateline story; after the recent killing of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol, a Homeland Security spokesperson claimed Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” even though he never drew his gun, for which he had a permit.)

This is not the first time DHS has been sued for impeding detainees’ access to counsel. Similar suits in New York and Illinois have resulted in court orders.

DHS also has a recent history of defying court orders.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz, chief judge of the Minnesota district, issued an order in a habeas petition in which he identified 96 court orders that ICE has violated since January 1 – a tally that he said is likely an undercount because it was assembled in haste.

“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” wrote Schiltz, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and clerked for Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice and conservative icon.

“ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” Schiltz wrote.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview with Fox News outside the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A panel of appellate judges seemed skeptical during Thursday oral arguments that the Trump administration erred in relying on a decades-old statute to require millions of noncitizens to register with the federal government and carry documentation.

But they did take issue with the paperwork required of immigrants without legal status as well as the consequences for those who fail to register, and questioned if the practice violated due process and self-incrimination rights.

In February, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the agency would enforce a rule under the Immigration and Nationality Act that requires all immigrants in the country without legal status to register with the agency or risk fines or potential jail time.  

A federal court in April sided with the Trump administration, allowing the registration requirement to go through.

The suit, brought by immigration rights advocates, does not challenge the statute from 1940 requiring those without legal status to register, but instead the process used by DHS in rolling out the policy without a proper notice and comment period. The suit also challenges a penalty for not filling out paperwork, as the form is only in English and can only be accessed with an internet connection.

Administration position

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Kartik N. Venguswamy from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said a notice and comment period is not needed because the form is just procedural and a new rule is not created. 

He added that the rule does not cause irreparable harm, because any harm is from outside forces, such as immigration enforcement or deportation that could follow registration with the federal government.  

Judges Patricia A. Millett, Gregory G. Katsas and J. Michelle Childs heard the case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Former President Barack Obama nominated Millett; President Donald Trump nominated Katsas in his first term; and former President Joe Biden nominated Childs.

The judges raised concerns with the form itself, including one question that requires the noncitizen to report any crimes they have committed, regardless of whether they were charged or convicted. 

That wades into violation of the 5th Amendment’s protections against self incrimination, one judge said.

“That’s asking you to confess to things that no government authority is aware of,” Millett said of the final rule. “And it’s a big step toward the 5th Amendment.”

The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, estimated that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants will have to register. The registration requirement could be a powerful tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out mass deportations.

Rule has gone unenforced

Michelle Lapointe, arguing on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said the federal government has not enforced the rule for nearly 80 years. 

The registration requirement is authorized under a wartime act known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940 that was first used in World War II. It was rarely used after that, but briefly in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

During that time, any noncitizen males older than 16 who hailed from 25 countries with a Muslim majority had to register with the federal government. But the program led to no terrorism convictions and was eventually dissolved in 2016.

Lapointe said because the rule would apply to as many as 3 million immigrants without legal status, a notice and comment period must occur. Under the rule, immigrants 14 and older who are required to register will need to carry registration documents at all times or risk potential prison terms or fines of up to $5,000.

“It is solely for the process of deportation,” Lapointe said.

As the Trump administration continues with its immigration crackdown, federal immigration officials could carry out their plans for mass deportations by having easy access to records of immigrants unlawfully in the country.

But Childs seemed skeptical that the federal government couldn’t use the statute, because it’s on the books.

Katsas also said the rule is not new — the government has just decided not to enforce it since 1940.

“It seems like a more fair account” that the government is ending a long policy of not enforcing a rule that, on its face, “covers all aliens,” he said.

But Katsas said the “rule does expand the category of information and that’s new.”

That category of information includes the requirement to detail to the federal government any crime the individual has committed, which Lapointe argued would violate 5th Amendment rights. 

Registration form debated

Childs and Millett questioned the roll-out of the form, the fact that it’s only accessible online and in English, and the penalty for not registering with the federal government.

“These are forms regulating a community … where English is not their native language,” Millett said. 

Venguswamy said the forms were in English because “English is the language of the United States government at this point.” 

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to adopt English as the official language, including paperwork.  

Millett asked Venguswamy if it’s the government’s position that an immigrant who doesn’t understand English will not be charged or issued a penalty for failing to register. 

“I’m not in a position to speak to whether or not that is the position the government will take,” Venguswamy said. 

Millett then asked why a proper notice and comment period is not needed for a new process, even if it’s not creating a new statute. 

She gave Venguswamy an example of the IRS not changing the tax code, but issuing a new tax form for taxpayers to fill out.

“We’re gonna issue new tax forms, for everyone to fill out their taxes, we’re not creating tax obligations, just new forms in Ancient Biblical Greek,” Millett said. 

She asked Venguswamy if a proper notice and comment period would be needed for those new tax forms.

He said it would not, because it’s a change in procedure, not a change to the rule.

“Wow,” Millett said. “We can all be criminally prosecuted for not filling out our taxes unless we can find the five people in the United States who know how to speak Ancient Biblical Greek.”