a. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge.
b. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.
c. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.
d. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents, or otherwise violating 18 U.S.C. § 111. The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.”
BREAKING: A federal judge in Minnesota has ordered restrictions on ICE's tactics against protesters who aren't suspected of committing crimes — including stopping cars that aren't obstructing them. https://t.co/FroWD9hSUJpic.twitter.com/7MWhntoM8X
The language of the order stunned many observers, particularly the provision allowing protestors to “safely” follow ICE vehicles without triggering reasonable suspicion. Critics argue that this invites harassment, intimidation, and potential danger for agents operating in already tense environments.
Supporters of the ruling framed it as a necessary safeguard for First Amendment rights. But conservatives see something far more troubling: a federal judge actively micromanaging law enforcement tactics in the middle of a large-scale immigration operation.
The decision also comes amid an escalating legal offensive from Democrat-led Minnesota officials. In a separate lawsuit, the state of Minnesota is attempting to block DHS outright from conducting immigration raids, even when those actions fall squarely under federal authority.
Judge Menendez did not immediately grant a TRO in that case, instead allowing both sides additional time to submit arguments. Still, the message from the bench was clear: federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota is under aggressive judicial scrutiny.
For critics of the Biden administration, the ruling is yet another example of how immigration enforcement is being undermined not only by White House policy but also by activist judges appointed during this administration.
At a time when border crossings remain high and sanctuary jurisdictions continue to resist federal law, the Minnesota order is likely to embolden protest groups nationwide. Law enforcement officials warn that restricting non-lethal tools and crowd control options could increase risks to agents and the public alike.
As Operation Metro Surge continues under these new legal constraints, all eyes will be on Minnesota to see whether ICE can still carry out its mission—or whether courtrooms and activist lawsuits will succeed where Congress and the White House have failed, effectively neutralizing immigration enforcement from the inside out.
