A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court ruling that restricted tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during protests in Minnesota, allowing officers greater flexibility in immigration enforcement operations.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel—comprising Judges Raymond Gruender, Bobby Shepherd, and David Stras—placed a stay on a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez. The original ruling had prohibited ICE agents from “arresting, detaining, pepper-spraying or retaliating against protesters in Minneapolis without probable cause.”
The appeals court stated it reviewed the same video evidence the district court examined and found Menendez’s order overly vague. Specifically, the panel concluded that her directive to avoid retaliation against individuals engaged in “peaceful and unobstructive protest activity” and prohibitions on stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion were effectively commands to “obey the law.” The court also noted that even restrictions on using pepper spray required agents to predict what Menendez would deem “peaceful and unobstructive protest.”
Judge Menendez had previously ruled in a January 16 case that federal agents violated First and Fourth Amendment rights during Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities, citing incidents involving alleged uses of pepper spray, arrests, and traffic stops against individuals peacefully observing or protesting immigration enforcement. The district court’s injunction blocked such actions pending further review.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described the appellate ruling as “incredibly disappointing,” stating that Minnesotans retain the right to safely assemble and protest federal immigration activities without fear of harm from ICE or other government actors. Deepinder Mayell, executive director of ACLU of Minnesota, emphasized this commitment in a statement following the decision.