The Trump administration secured an appeals court order that halted a judge’s limitations on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tactics when handling protesters in Minnesota.
On Monday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an indefinite stay on a lower court judge’s January 16 order, which had barred officers from arresting, detaining, using pepper spray on, or retaliating against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis. The decision will stay on hold as the government’s appeal proceeds.
A December-filed lawsuit claimed that federal officers infringed upon the constitutional rights of six protesters, including blocking a civilian’s car and pointing a rifle inside it. Protests have persisted across Minneapolis, where ICE agents fatally shot Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24. President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and has put 1,500 U.S. troops on standby to support federal agents in Minnesota.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez stated in her January 16 order that the protesters had demonstrated an “ongoing, persistent pattern” of intimidating behavior by ICE officers. She noted she could not “overlook the nearly constant press coverage of ongoing protest activity met with continued aggressive reactions from immigration officers operating in the Twin Cities.”
Menendez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, is also considering a request from Minnesota state officials to issue an order halting the deployment of thousands of immigration enforcement officers in the state.
At a Monday hearing, Menendez informed lawyers that she was grappling with the extensive scope of the state’s request to pause Operation Metro Surge and remove officers from the streets during the ongoing legal battle. She noted that U.S. officials possess “considerable power” to enforce immigration laws.
However, the judge also challenged the Justice Department’s claim that the surge’s objective is not to compel Minnesota to alter its policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, underscoring a discrepancy between U.S. officials’ public remarks and the government’s court arguments.
Read More:
Minnesota is claiming that the deployment of officers from ICE and other federal agencies unconstitutionally interferes with the state’s authority to govern its own affairs and is harming the safety and well-being of its residents.
The primary case is Tincher v. Noem, 25-cv-4669, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The appellate case is Tincher v. Noem, 26-1105, in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.