An appeals court in Minnesota has ruled in favor of federal immigration agents, reversing a lower court’s decision that imposed stringent restrictions on the handling of violent protesters and observers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an administrative stay on Wednesday, pausing the lower court’s preliminary injunction that limited the tactics employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the Twin Cities area.
The case was initiated following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota on December 17, 2025. The lawsuit included six plaintiffs who alleged violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights while either observing or protesting ICE activities. The plaintiffs claimed they experienced unjust arrests, intimidation involving firearms, pepper spray usage, and unreasonable traffic stops lacking probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
This legal action emerged amid Operation Metro Surge, a significant immigration enforcement initiative launched by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in early December 2025. This operation has seen the deployment of over 3,000 federal agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul, resulting in the arrest of more than 10,000 individuals, as confirmed by U.S. Border Patrol officials.
Court’s Preliminary Ruling and Government Response
On January 16, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, appointed by President Biden, granted a preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs had effectively shown a likelihood of success in their claims regarding First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizures. Judge Menendez’s decision highlighted that the actions of federal agents, which included arrests made without probable cause and the application of chemical irritants against peacefully observing individuals, posed a “chilling effect” on constitutional rights.
In response, both the DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the judgment, arguing that the preliminary injunction hampered ICE agents’ capacity to enforce immigration laws and adequately protect themselves in precarious situations. Government lawyers asserted that the injunction jeopardized officers’ ability to safeguard themselves and the public in potentially hazardous environments.
Eighth Circuit Court’s Administrative Stay
On Wednesday, just five days after the lower court’s ruling, the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit court issued an administrative stay with a brief, unsigned order that did not provide a detailed rationale. This stay effectively suspends Judge Menendez’s injunction, allowing ICE agents to operate without the previous restrictions on arrests, detentions, and the use of non-lethal force against observers and protesters.
Attorney General Pam Bondi commented on the ruling, stating, “A liberal judge in Minnesota tried to handcuff ICE agents who are enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws and responding to obstructive and violent interference from agitators. The 8th Circuit just granted an administrative stay HALTING these restrictions, which were designed to undermine federal law enforcement.”
This legal development is significant as it allows ICE agents to resume operations without the limitations imposed by the lower court, particularly in high-tension environments where confrontation with protesters is likely. The duration of this stay remains uncertain as the appeals process continues, but for the time being, federal agents will not be subject to the previously established restrictions.
This case illustrates the ongoing legal and operational challenges that federal immigration agents face amid heightened tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in various U.S. communities. The outcome of this appeal could have wide-ranging ramifications for ICE operations and the rights of individuals engaging in protests concerning immigration policies.
As discussions around immigration laws and enforcement strategies continue, this ruling underscores the tension between federal authority and local activism. Stakeholders on both sides of the debate remain attentive to the developments in this case.