A Hilton-branded hotel in the Minneapolis area has sparked a legal and political controversy after allegedly canceling room reservations made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a social media post on Monday, January 5, 2025.
The incident comes amid heightened federal immigration enforcement activity in Minnesota.
According to DHS, the agents booked their rooms using official government email addresses and government rates, but were informed by the hotel that reservations would be canceled because the property was not allowing “any ICE or immigration agents” to stay there.
Screenshots shared by DHS show emails stating that staff had “noticed an influx of GOV reservations made today that have been for DHS” and were therefore being rejected.
The dispute highlights potential legal issues around contractual obligations and discrimination claims involving law enforcement officers carrying out official duties. Federal agents often travel on official business under government-rate contracts, and canceling such bookings—if proven deliberate—could raise questions about contractual rights and anti-discrimination protections.
Corporate Response and Legal Ramifications
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, which franchises many properties including the Lakeville-area Hampton Inn in question, clarified that the hotel is independently owned and operated, and said the cancellation did not reflect company policy or values. The company stated it is investigating the matter and affirmed its commitment to welcoming all guests, including law enforcement.
The hotel operator, Everpeak Hospitality, told local media that the cancellation was inconsistent with its policies, and it was working to re-accommodate affected guests. However, Hilton later removed the property from its corporate system, signaling serious corporate concern over the incident and potential breaches of franchise standards.
Context of Enforcement and Community Tensions
The cancellations come during a major DHS immigration operation in Minnesota, where federal agents have been deployed amid allegations of widespread fraud in immigrant communities, particularly involving Somali-American day care providers. While federal authorities say the operation targets criminal conduct, immigrant-rights groups have decried the effort as overly broad and discriminatory.
Legal observers note that private businesses generally have the right to refuse service under U.S. law, but government contracts and official bookings often carry distinct obligations.
If reservations were made under a government contract or official rate, the hotel’s action could raise questions about whether it breached contractual commitments or engaged in prohibited discrimination against federal officers acting in the course of their duties.
Broader Legal and Public Policy Implications
The case underscores tensions at the intersection of private business policies, government enforcement actions, and public sentiment over immigration law.
It also raises questions about how franchisees implement corporate standards and what legal recourse federal agents might pursue if they believe they were unlawfully denied lodging while performing official functions.
