What are the specific claims and requested remedies in the State of Minnesota's complaint (Case No. 0:26-cv-00190)?

1. Who sued whom and why the complaint says it matters

Minnesota’s complaint is filed on behalf of the state (and co-plaintiffs listed in the pleading) against a combination of federal officials and state actors — the publicly available docket lists defendants including Kristi Noem and several federal personnel by name — alleging actions that the state contends harm Minnesota’s interests and violate federal administrative law and related statutes ^{[2] [3]}. The complaint document hosted by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office is the primary pleading setting out the facts and legal theories Minnesota relies on ^[1].

2. Core legal theories pled: APA and reviewable agency action

The case is catalogued in court records under a nature-of-suit that references the Administrative Procedure Act and review or appeal of agency decisions, indicating Minnesota frames its claims as challenges to federal administrative action or to agency decisionmaking that the state says is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful under the APA ^[2]. The public complaint itself is the source the state used to articulate those statutory bases and factual allegations supporting them ^[1].

3. Specific claims and statutory labels described in the complaint

The complaint document filed January 12, 2026 sets out Minnesota’s causes of action and the factual predicate for each claim; those pages contain the precise counts and legal citations that define the state’s challenge ^[1]. Court docket summaries and case listings also corroborate that Minnesota frames this as an APA-centered suit and other federal-law claims, but reporting metadata does not replace reading the complaint to see every count and statutory reference ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Requested immediate relief: temporary restraining order and other emergency measures

Court docket activity accompanying the complaint shows that Minnesota simultaneously sought temporary emergency relief — a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and related filings were entered after the complaint — which signals the state’s intent to halt the challenged conduct on an emergency basis while litigation proceeds ^[2]. Those motion filings and proposed orders on the docket are the vehicles by which Minnesota asked the court to impose immediate limits on defendants’ activity ^[2].

5. Longer-term remedies the state asks the court to grant

Beyond emergency relief, the complaint itself requests declaratory judgments and permanent injunctive relief to set aside or prohibit the defendants’ contested actions, a common remedial palette in APA and constitutional challenges; the public complaint document lists the precise forms of relief the state seeks ^[1]. Where pleading specifics matter — for example, whether Minnesota seeks money damages, disgorgement, or only prospective equitable relief — the complaint text is the controlling source ^[1].

6. Limits of available reporting and where to read the complaint directly

Public docket entries and news-hosted PDFs provide access to the complaint and motion packets, but summaries on docket platforms do not substitute for the full pleading for parsing each count, the factual allegations, and the exact remedial language Minnesota uses; the complaint PDF on the Attorney General’s site and mirrored copies on court dockets are the authoritative sources ^{[1] [4]}. Any reader seeking the line-by-line legal theories, statutory citations, or the full list of requested injunctions should consult the complaint document itself ^[1].