What evidence did the Minnesota judge cite when barring ICE and Border Patrol from using tear gas on peaceful protesters?
Executive summary
U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez issued a preliminary injunction forbidding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol officers involved in Operation Metro Surge from detaining or using tear gas, pepper spray or similar crowd-control munitions against people engaging in peaceful, non‑obstructive protest or merely observing enforcement actions, basing that ban on an extensive written finding that plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were likely being violated and that the government had not shown sufficient evidence to justify the contested tactics [1] [2] [3]. The order applies only in Minnesota to agents participating in the surge and was grounded in the plaintiffs’ claims, contemporaneous reporting and the judge’s assessment of the record detailed across an 80‑plus page opinion [3] [2] [1].
1. Legal posture: an 80‑plus page preliminary injunction tied to Operation Metro Surge
Menendez’s written ruling—running roughly 80 pages—issued a preliminary injunction limiting federal agents’ use of nonlethal munitions and arrests against peaceful observers and protesters, and explicitly confined the order to federal officers involved in Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota [2] [3] [1]. The judge framed the relief as protection for “persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity,” barring pepper‑spray, tear gas and other crowd‑dispersal tools against such individuals unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct [2] [1].
2. The plaintiffs’ evidence and constitutional focus
The case was brought by six Minnesota activists represented by the ACLU of Minnesota who alleged repeated arrests, pepper‑spraying, threats and other retaliation while legally observing immigration operations; Menendez found those claims sufficient to show a likelihood of First Amendment infringement at the preliminary stage [4] [1]. Reporting indicates the judge relied heavily on the activists’ accounts and the pattern of confrontations during the surge as the factual predicate for concluding that peaceful observers were being chilled or physically targeted [2] [1].
3. What the government offered — and what the judge found lacking
The federal government defended its tactics as responses to threats and violence, but journalists and court summaries noted that the administration did not supply the sort of firsthand, corroborating evidence the court needed to show that the contested crowd‑control measures were necessary to address imminent danger; some outlets report the judge found the government’s evidentiary showing insufficient at this stage [5] [1]. Menendez therefore limited enforcement powers absent a factual showing of reasonable suspicion that individual protesters were obstructing operations or committing crimes [1] [2].
4. Specific operational limits the judge ordered
Concretely, Menendez barred federal agents in the Minneapolis operation from detaining people who were peacefully observing or following officers at an “appropriate distance,” and prohibited use of pepper spray, tear gas and other crowd‑control munitions against peaceful demonstrators and bystanders who were observing or recording enforcement activities unless individual behavior crossed into obstruction or criminality [2] [1]. The written order emphasized that mere following of vehicles at a safe distance “does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop” [2].
5. Context, counterarguments and the appeals posture
The injunction echoed similar First Amendment‑based rulings from other cities but arrived amid highly charged events in Minnesota — including fatal shootings involving federal agents — that the government said justified robust tactics [1] [2]. The Trump administration appealed, and a three‑judge panel of the 8th Circuit temporarily stayed or paused enforcement of the lower‑court restriction while the appeal proceeded, a development that highlights competing safety and civil‑liberties claims [6] [7] [8]. Border Patrol leadership publicly signaled it would continue to use tear gas despite the district court order, underscoring the operational and political tensions surrounding the ruling [9].
Menendez’s decision therefore rested on the plaintiffs’ documented patterns of alleged arrests, pepper‑spraying and threats during the Metro Surge deployments, her determination that those allegations plausibly infringed First Amendment rights, and the judge’s finding that the government had not produced sufficient first‑hand evidence to show the broader use of tear gas and similar munitions was justified against peaceful observers [4] [1] [5]. Because the ruling was preliminary and geographically narrow, it was immediately caught up in appellate stays and public debate about officer safety and protester rights [7] [6].