What court filings name David Easterwood as an ICE official and what do they allege?
Executive summary
Multiple recent court filings — including a mid‑December class action by the ACLU of Minnesota and a state lawsuit filed Jan. 12 — identify a person named David Easterwood as the acting director of ICE’s St. Paul field office, and those filings and related court papers allege aggressive ICE tactics in Minnesota such as racial profiling, arrests without probable cause, and other contested enforcement practices; Easterwood himself filed a Jan. 5 court filing defending those tactics and describing tools and threats used by agents [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting also shows Easterwood is routinely named in Department of Homeland Security/ICE court filings as the local enforcement official [6] [7].
1. The filings that name Easterwood and how they describe his role
Court filings cited by local and national reporting identify a man named David Easterwood as the acting director of ICE’s St. Paul field office, and those identifications appear in at least two strands of litigation: a class action complaint brought by the ACLU of Minnesota in mid‑December alleging “unlawful policies and practices” by ICE in Minnesota, and a Jan. 12 state lawsuit seeking to halt the federal immigration crackdown, in which Easterwood is listed among defendants; news outlets report the church website information for Cities Church matches the personal details used in those filings [2] [3] [4] [1].
2. What the ACLU class action and related civil suits allege
The ACLU‑led class action and other related civil challenges allege broad patterns of misconduct by ICE in Minnesota, including racial profiling and arrests without warrants or probable cause, and characterize ICE’s local policies and practices as unlawful — allegations that explicitly connect to actions overseen by the St. Paul field office named in the complaints [2] [3]. Local reporting conveys that plaintiffs accuse agents of using aggressive tactics during recent enforcement operations that have escalated community concern and prompted protest [2] [8].
3. The Jan. 5 court filing in which Easterwood responds
In a Jan. 5 court filing that has been widely reported, the David Easterwood identified in reporting defended ICE tactics used in Minnesota and described operational responses to what he characterized as increased threats and aggressive behavior toward agents; the filing specifically referenced practices and tools such as swapping license plates, spraying chemical irritants on crowds, and the need for crowd‑control devices like flash‑bangs to protect officers [5] [9] [10] [8]. That filing is the primary public document in which an ICE official by that name directly challenges allegations about enforcement conduct and frames the agency’s actions as necessary for officer safety [5] [9].
4. Other individual suits and reporting details tied to Easterwood
Reporting surfaced specific civil complaints that name Easterwood or men of the same name in connection with particular arrests and protests — for example, a lawsuit brought by a protester, Susan Tincher, alleging harsh treatment during detention, which local outlets say Easterwood addressed in court papers by defending the officers’ conduct; tabloids and local reporting also reference Easterwood being named in a pending ACLU class action for aggressive tactics [11] [2]. Multiple outlets note that Easterwood’s name appears routinely in DHS/ICE court filings and that his biographical information on Cities Church’s website aligns with the identity used in those filings [6] [1].
5. Conflicting narratives, legal posture, and reporting limits
News organizations present competing frames: plaintiffs and protesters argue the filings document systemic civil‑rights violations under ICE’s Minnesota operations, while the Jan. 5 filing from Easterwood presents a defensive narrative stressing officer safety and justifying forceful tactics; meanwhile, the Department of Justice has opened investigations related to protest activity and civil‑rights enforcement questions in the aftermath, which has further politicized the litigation [3] [5] [8]. Reporting consolidates which filings name Easterwood but does not reproduce full complaints or all allegations line‑by‑line in these accounts, so the publicly reported summaries should be treated as descriptions of the filings rather than exhaustive transcripts of the pleadings [2] [4].