What did the ACLU lawsuit filed after Alex Pretti's death allege and seek?
Executive summary
The ACLU’s federal lawsuit filed in the hours after Alex Pretti’s killing accuses Homeland Security and its agents of deploying intimidating, unlawful tactics in Minneapolis that chilled constitutional protest and obstructed local investigations; it seeks emergency injunctive relief, preservation of evidence and court declarations limiting federal operations in the state [1] [2]. The filings, described as a class action on behalf of Minneapolis residents and protest observers, asked judges to restrain federal officers’ conduct and to reinstate or impose restrictions on how those agents operate in the city [3] [4].
1. What the complaint alleges: intimidation, chilling of speech and unlawful tactics
The ACLU’s complaint frames the federal deployment as a campaign of intimidation that “chills” First Amendment activity, alleging DHS and ICE used tactics likened in court papers to authoritarian repression to deter residents from observing and documenting immigration enforcement [1]. That class-action claim directly challenges the conduct of top ICE, CBP and Department of Homeland Security officials — and in filings the ACLU tied those behaviors to a broader pattern of federal crowd-control and surveillance tactics deployed in Minneapolis [3] [1].
2. What plaintiffs asked the court to do: emergency relief and operational limits
In immediate relief requests, the complaint sought temporary restraining orders and injunctions to halt certain federal practices, to reinstate previously negotiated restrictions on federal agents’ behavior in Minnesota, and to declare elements of the large-scale federal deployment unlawful under the Constitution and federal law [4] [5]. Plaintiffs specifically asked judges to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence related to Pretti’s killing, and to require preservation of materials and access so state investigators could conduct their inquiries [6] [5].
3. Evidence marshaled in support: affidavits, videos and eyewitness declarations
The ACLU’s filings included sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses who say they did not see Pretti brandish a weapon and who supplied video and on-scene descriptions contradicting initial federal statements — evidence the complaint uses to challenge the federal narrative and to justify urgent court intervention [2] [6] [3]. One declaration, from a woman who filmed the shooting, and another from a physician who watched from an apartment window, were redacted in places but cited in court exhibits that plaintiffs argue show the need for oversight and evidence preservation [2] [5].
4. Immediate judicial and prosecutorial outcomes sought and obtained
Plaintiffs pushed for immediate judicial steps; a Minnesota federal judge ordered federal agencies to preserve evidence connected to Pretti’s shooting after state authorities warned the Department of Homeland Security might deny access to material important to local probes [6]. The ACLU’s emergency appeal and the broader lawsuit sought to stop agents from continuing aggressive tactics in Minneapolis while litigation and investigations proceed, and to secure judicial declarations that would constrain future federal deployments [5] [4].
5. Competing narratives, stakes and political context
The ACLU’s allegations sit amid intense, polarized coverage: administration officials initially characterized Pretti as a “gunman,” a framing later undercut by videos and witness affidavits cited in ACLU filings, prompting White House damage-control and broader public outcry [7] [2]. Conservative outlets have emphasized allegations that activists intentionally interfered with federal operations, portraying the suit as politically driven, while the ACLU and Minnesota plaintiffs cast it as a constitutional check on an aggressive federal crackdown [8] [1]. Reporting shows the suit is both a legal attempt to preserve evidence and an effort to force transparent limits on federal law‑enforcement tactics in a city already roiled by earlier related killings and protests [9] [10].