A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday lifted a lower-court order that had barred federal officers from arresting or using tear gas against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, where thousands of immigration enforcement agents have been deployed despite objections from state and local leaders.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in December by activists opposing President Donald Trump’s deportation drive in Minnesota’s largest city.
The plaintiffs said federal agents violated their constitutional rights by interfering with peaceful protests and efforts to observe and document immigration enforcement operations.
Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez sided with the activists, issuing a preliminary injunction that barred federal immigration agents from retaliating against individuals engaged in nonviolent, unobstructive protests.
Her order prohibited agents from detaining or using pepper spray, tear gas or other crowd-control munitions against peaceful demonstrators or bystanders observing or recording enforcement actions in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The injunction was to remain in effect while the merits of the lawsuit were reviewed. But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement, appealed the ruling.
On Wednesday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with DHS, blocking the injunction while it considers whether to issue a longer-term stay or reinstate Menendez’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents.
Twin cities tensions
U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi welcomed the appeals court decision, saying the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit had thwarted an effort by Menendez to "handcuff ICE agents who are enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and responding to obstructive and violent interference from agitators.”
Trump has sent nearly 3,000 Border Patrol and ICE officers into the Minneapolis area in recent weeks to conduct deportation roundups on an unprecedented scale, prompting daily protests and some violent confrontations.
Most demonstrations have been peaceful. But tensions escalated after an ICE agent fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good two weeks ago as she sat behind the wheel of her car.
Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, was taking part in neighborhood patrols monitoring ICE raids, according to activists.
On Sunday, federal agents broke down the front door of a Minneapolis home with guns drawn, handcuffed the resident and forced him outside in the snow wearing only underwear and sandals, only to later determine they had the wrong person.
The two "criminal illegal aliens” DHS said it was seeking during the raid were elsewhere, one of them already incarcerated at a Minneapolis-area prison serving a four-year sentence.
The man who was mistakenly detained, ChongLy "Scott” Thao, 56, said officers had no warrant.
Focus on warrants
In the days since that incident, an internal ICE memo dated May 12, 2025, has surfaced asserting officers have been granted new latitude by DHS lawyers to forcibly enter a private home to make an administrative immigration arrest without a court-issued warrant.
"The DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act and immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose,” wrote acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.
The memo, obtained by civil liberties group Whistleblower Aid and reviewed by Reuters, said the determination marks a departure from longstanding DHS policy, which "has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone” to make such arrests.
Immigration agents have generally been barred from entering private homes or businesses without a warrant issued by a federal judge.
ICE often relies on administrative warrants, known as Form I-205s, which authorize arrests in public spaces but do not permit agents to enter private property without consent.
People arrested in their homes by ICE agents without a judicial warrant may challenge their detention by arguing the action violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Asked about the memo, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email that "every illegal alien served administrative warrants, or I-205s, has received full due process and has a final order of removal from an immigration judge.
"For decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in immigration enforcement,” she said.
Trump vs. Minnesota
Menendez is also presiding over a separate lawsuit filed this month by the Minnesota state government and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The plaintiffs asked the court to curb the surge in immigration enforcement, arguing the administration has violated residents’ rights by forcing entry into homes without warrants and arresting people, including U.S. citizens, without probable cause. The Trump administration says its actions are lawful.
Trump has said the enforcement surge is necessary to combat fraud and the theft of federal funding for social services, claims he has blamed on people of Somali origin in Minnesota.
He has repeatedly attacked the state’s Somali community, the largest in the United States, using derogatory language.
Further straining relations, the administration has launched a criminal investigation into several prominent political opponents, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department served their offices with grand jury subpoenas examining whether their opposition to the ICE surge constitutes criminal obstruction of federal law enforcement.
Walz and Frey have urged calm while condemning ICE operations as reckless political theater that endangers the public.
They say Trump is seeking to provoke chaos to justify an even larger show of force.