FOLLOW US

A federal judge in Minnesota on Friday night barred immigration agents from retaliating against or detaining, without probable cause, individuals engaged in peaceful and non-obstructive protests against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities.

U.S. District Judge Kate M. Menendez granted a preliminary injunction sought by six Minnesota residents who allege they were harassed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while protesting or observing Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

The injunction applies both to the six named plaintiffs and to a broader class defined as all individuals who record, observe, or protest Operation Metro Surge or related enforcement actions conducted in the district since Dec. 4, 2025.

Under the order, federal agents are prohibited from retaliating against peaceful protesters, arresting or detaining individuals without probable cause, deploying chemical irritants against nonviolent demonstrators, or stopping and detaining vehicles absent reasonable, articulable suspicion that occupants are interfering with enforcement activities.

The injunction will remain in effect until Operation Metro Surge ends or circumstances change such that the relief is no longer necessary, the judge said.

In her ruling, Judge Menendez cited a “qualitative imbalance” in the evidentiary record, noting that plaintiffs submitted multiple sworn declarations detailing firsthand experiences, while the government relied largely on a single declaration from the acting ICE field office director in St. Paul, who was not directly involved in the alleged incidents.

Although the government submitted incident reports prepared by Department of Homeland Security personnel, the judge said those documents did not carry the same evidentiary weight as the plaintiffs’ sworn testimony. She emphasized that the court did not disregard the government’s evidence, but found that plaintiffs were only required at this stage to show a fair chance of success on the merits.

Judge Menendez concluded that two plaintiffs, including U.S. citizen Susan Tincher, are likely to succeed in showing they were arrested in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. Tincher alleges ICE agents forced her to the ground and detained her for five hours after she asked officers to identify their agency.

Another plaintiff, Alan Crenshaw, is likely to succeed in showing that an ICE agent sprayed him with a chemical irritant in retaliation for observing agents detaining people outside a restaurant. The remaining plaintiffs are likely to succeed on claims that ICE agents violated their Fourth Amendment rights by stopping them without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

The judge rejected the government’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect the right to observe or record law enforcement, finding that peaceful observation of officers performing public duties is constitutionally protected. She noted that every federal appellate court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion.

Menendez also found that the agents’ conduct — including pointing weapons, using pepper spray, and making actual or threatened arrests — would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity.

While stressing that her findings were preliminary, the judge determined that plaintiffs had shown a fair chance of proving their protected speech, protest, and observation motivated the adverse actions taken against them.

The court did not find a likelihood of success on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment content- or viewpoint-discrimination claims, concluding those allegations were not clearly pleaded as independent claims. However, the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their Fourth Amendment claims, even in light of the government’s assertions that some individuals following ICE vehicles had driven erratically.

The judge said generalized concerns about dangerous conduct do not justify stopping vehicles that are not violating the law.

Menendez further concluded that plaintiffs face a credible risk of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. She rejected the government’s characterization of the incidents as isolated, noting that Operation Metro Surge has expanded rapidly, with estimates placing roughly 3,000 immigration enforcement agents in Minnesota and indicating the operation is still escalating.

Unlike cases where defendants concede wrongdoing but argue it is unlikely to recur, Menendez said the government maintains its officers’ conduct is lawful, suggesting the challenged actions would continue without court intervention.

The ACLU of Minnesota welcomed the ruling, saying it hoped the order would prevent further First Amendment violations tied to Operation Metro Surge.

In response, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said the First Amendment protects peaceful speech and assembly, not rioting. She asserted that DHS has faced violent attacks, including fireworks, slashed tires, and vehicles used against officers, and said agents have used only the minimum force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Minnesota, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Forsgren Fisher McCalmont DeMarea Tysver LLP, and The Law Office of Kevin C. Riach. The federal government is represented by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is Susan Tincher et al. v. Kristi Noem et al., No. 0:25-cv-04669, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.