Which federal court rulings have recently limited DHS or ICE policies on protests and recording agents?

1. Minneapolis injunction: limits on arrests, force, and retaliation

A federal judge in Minneapolis issued an order prohibiting federal agents from arresting, detaining, pepper‑spraying, or otherwise retaliating against peaceful demonstrators — explicitly including people monitoring and observing ICE agents — as part of litigation over Operation Metro Surge and other federal deployments in the Twin Cities, a ruling framed as protecting First Amendment activity amid allegations of excessive force by federal officers ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. DHS “unlawful policy” finding on recording and First Amendment chill

In a separate decision, U.S. District Judge Hernan A. Vera found that DHS had adopted a policy that appears to suppress First Amendment rights by labeling tactics like videotaping and livestreaming at protests as “unlawful civil unrest,” a classification that federal plaintiffs and civil‑liberties groups say unlawfully conflates observation and documentation with threats and can chill constitutionally protected speech ^[3].

3. Chicago and other courts: preliminary injunctions and credibility findings

Courts outside Minnesota have likewise pushed back: in Chicago, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction against DHS after finding voluminous evidence that federal officers ignored prior limits on force and describing official testimony as not credible, a ruling that reinforced the proposition that certain DHS tactics and definitions used to police protests may be unlawful or applied in ways that violate rights ^[6].

4. Warrant rule and oversight rulings complicate the picture

Other federal rulings have constrained DHS in related ways: a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that some ICE home‑entry practices require judicial warrants, contradicting an internal ICE memo suggesting judge‑signed warrants were unnecessary, and judges in other forums have blocked or modified agency policies on congressional access to facilities and notice requirements, producing a patchwork of limits on agency discretion and transparency ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Pushback, compliance fights, and judicial enforcement

At the same time, courts are actively policing compliance: a chief federal judge in Minnesota threatened ICE leadership with contempt and ordered senior officials to appear to explain failures to comply with court orders, signaling aggressive judicial enforcement even as other judges declined to enjoin the entire surge of agents into Minnesota — illustrating that limitations often take the form of targeted injunctions and supervisory orders rather than nationwide bans ^{[9] [4]}.

6. Stakes, narratives, and competing agendas

The rulings sit at the intersection of competing narratives: advocates and local officials portray injunctions as necessary checks on militarized policing and First Amendment suppression ^{[10] [5]}, while DHS and administration lawyers argue the operations are lawful enforcement of immigration laws and necessary for public safety, framing litigation as politically motivated; media outlets and think tanks emphasize different elements, with civil‑liberties groups highlighting constitutional harm and some conservative outlets decrying limits on law enforcement prerogatives ^{[11] [6] [12]}.

7. What the reporting does and does not show

The available reporting documents multiple district‑court orders restricting arrests, use of force, and anti‑recording policies by DHS and ICE and shows active judicial oversight and contested compliance, but it does not establish a single, nationwide judicial rule nullifying DHS authority — the landscape remains case‑specific and evolving, with some courts issuing narrow restraints while others have refused sweeping relief ^{[1] [3] [4]}.