Minneapolis Protesters Demand Court Order to Limit ICE Force
Anti-ICE protesters in Minneapolis made a strong plea to a federal judge. They urged the court to restrict immigration officers' use of force. This high-stakes hearing happened less than a week after a federal agent shot and killed a woman in her car.
Lawsuit Gains Urgency After Fatal Shooting
Protesters filed the lawsuit in December. Weeks later, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer killed Minneapolis mother Renee Good during a confrontation. The case took on fresh urgency after the shooting. Disputed circumstances have caused a bitter rift between state and federal authorities.
Good's death was not discussed at Tuesday's hearing before US District Judge Katherine Menendez. The judge heard arguments on the protesters' request for an order restricting ICE agents' use of force while the case proceeds. Judge Menendez said she would issue a ruling by early Friday.
Operation Metro Surge Brings Thousands of ICE Agents
The Minneapolis case comes amid a major influx of ICE agents into the area. Federal authorities dubbed this operation "Operation Metro Surge." It is part of a broader crackdown on undocumented immigrants by the Trump administration.
The state of Minnesota filed a separate suit over the surge on Monday. State officials accused the Department of Homeland Security of targeting Minneapolis to punish political opponents and score partisan points.
"We are in unprecedented times," said Kyle Wislocky, a lawyer for the protesters, at the hearing. "DHS themselves have described this operation as the largest immigration operation ever in the country, what's going on right now in Minnesota."
Protesters Seek Protection of First Amendment Rights
Protesters sued DHS and Secretary Kristi Noem. They seek to stop officers from telling people they cannot follow them on public roads. The lawsuit also aims to ensure protesters are not retaliated against for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The requested injunction would restrict ICE in several ways. It would bar the use of chemical irritants against people who do not pose a threat of imminent harm. Officers would be barred from pointing firearms at protesters who do not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Justice Department Defends ICE Conduct
In legal filings, the Justice Department defended ICE agents' conduct. Government lawyers said officers have faced threats and violence. A broad injunction would threaten officer safety and impede lawful enforcement activity, the US argued.
"Large crowds have surrounded ICE officers in the process of making an arrest," the government said. "Individuals have hurled projectiles at them to the point where the officers were 'panicked' and had to call for backup."
Plaintiffs Describe Harrowing Encounters
One plaintiff is Susan Tincher, a mother of three who runs a small consulting business with her husband. She sued over what happened after she approached a group of ICE officers on a sidewalk.
Tincher says the officers were surrounding a house. She asked, from six feet away, "Are you ICE?" Seconds later, officers forced her to the ground, handcuffed her, and took her to a federal building where she was locked up.
"Agents cut off some of her clothes and her wedding ring, shackled her, and left her in a cell for hours," the suit states. "She was released without charge. Mrs. Tincher believes ICE was retaliating against her for seeking information about and observing and protesting their activities."
Jeremy Newman, a Justice Department lawyer, told Judge Menendez that officers ordered Tincher to "get back" and she did not comply. He said she was arrested because the officer reasonably believed she was physically impeding their operation to detain a violent criminal.
Judge Notes Lack of Sworn Explanations
Judge Menendez noted that the government had not provided sworn explanations about the disputed incidents from the involved officers. This was despite having been given extra time to do so.
Another plaintiff and his wife say ICE officers boxed in their car and pointed semiautomatic weapons in their faces. This happened because they had followed officers from the site of a potential sting operation at a church.
The case is Tincher v. Noem, 25-cv-4669, US District Court for the District of Minnesota (Minneapolis).
