What specific actions did Judge Kate Menendez’s injunction bar federal agents from doing in Minneapolis?

1. The core prohibitions: no retaliation, arrests or detentions of peaceful observers

Menendez’s order explicitly barred federal agents from retaliating against people “engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity,” and from arresting or detaining demonstrators and bystanders who were peacefully observing or recording immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis–St. Paul ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. Specific crowd-control tools the injunction barred in this context

The injunction prohibited use of pepper spray, tear gas and other “nonlethal munitions” or crowd-dispersal tools against peaceful demonstrators or bystanders who were not obstructing operations, language that several outlets summarized as banning chemical irritants and similar munitions when used in retaliation for protected speech ^{[5] [1] [2] [6]}.

3. Limits on vehicle stops and enforcement against followers/observers

Menendez also constrained stops and detentions of drivers and passengers: following agents or safely observing Operation Metro Surge at an appropriate distance did not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify stopping or detaining a vehicle, and the order barred stopping or detaining people in vehicles who were not “forcibly obstructing or interfering” with officers ^{[7] [4] [8]}.

4. Geographic and programmatic scope: Twin Cities, Operation Metro Surge, and personnel covered

The injunction was tailored to officers deployed in the Twin Cities and to the federal immigration operation dubbed Operation Metro Surge, rather than a statewide ban; Menendez limited relief to agents participating in that surge and to conduct directed at the class of protesters and observers who brought the suit ^{[1] [3] [8]}.

5. How the order framed government conduct and the First Amendment concern

In an 83‑page ruling, Menendez found a pattern of conduct — drawing and pointing weapons, use of nonlethal munitions, actual and threatened arrests and intimidation tactics — that had a chilling effect on First Amendment activity; she concluded the government had not explained why arrests or force against peaceful observers were necessary ^{[7] [8] [1]}.

6. The injunction’s temporary status and appellate pushback

The relief was preliminary and meant to remain in effect while the merits were litigated, but the Eighth Circuit granted the administration an administrative stay that paused Menendez’s restrictions while it considers the appeal; some appellate judges said parts, like a pepper‑spray ban on peaceful demonstrators, were sufficiently specific to merit preservation, while the panel overall found the injunction too broad or vague to stand immediately ^{[2] [5] [6]}.

7. Competing narratives and institutional responses

The ACLU and Minnesota plaintiffs framed the injunction as necessary to protect constitutional speech and observation rights amid a mass DHS deployment, while DHS and administration lawyers argued Menendez lacked authority and that the order imperiled officers’ ability to respond to violence and obstruction; DHS spokespeople emphasized protecting officers and federal property, and the Trump administration quickly sought appellate relief ^{[1] [2] [9] [10]}.

8. What the reporting does not establish

The available articles document the injunction’s prohibitions, its factual findings about prior federal tactics, and the appellate stay, but do not resolve the underlying merits of the constitutional claims or provide a final ruling on whether the restrictions will be reinstated permanently—those outcomes remain in active court proceedings and are not settled by the cited reporting ^{[2] [11]}.