Was a federal judge in Minnesota arrested

1. What the reporting actually documents: arrests of civilians and judicial rulings

The central stories across wire and national outlets chronicle immigration-enforcement operations in Minneapolis that resulted in the arrest of civilians—most prominently Garrison Gibson, a Liberian man whose detention was later vacated by a federal judge—and legal challenges to how federal agents have engaged protesters and observers, not the arrest of any federal judge ^{[1] [2] [3] [6]}. Coverage from Reuters, AP, NBC and others describes aggressive tactics by immigration officers, subsequent litigation brought by local residents and civil-rights groups, and injunctions limiting crowd-control measures and arrests of peaceful observers ^{[3] [2] [1] [6]}.

2. The Gibson arrest and a judge ordering his release — what is established

Reporting establishes that immigration officers executed an arrest at a Minneapolis residence using a battering ram on Jan. 11 and that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan later found Fourth Amendment violations and ordered the release of Garrison Gibson, concluding agents entered without a judicial warrant or consent ^{[1] [2]}. AP and NBC coverage document the sequence: the forcible entry and arrest by DHS/ICE personnel, legal challenges over notice and process, and the judge’s written finding that the arrest violated Gibson’s constitutional protections ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Injunctions and limits on federal agents — federal judges as decision‑makers, not detainees

Several federal judges in Minnesota presided over suits brought by protesters and municipalities alleging constitutional injuries from Operation Metro Surge; U.S. District Judge Katherine (Kate) Menendez issued a preliminary injunction restricting federal agents from arresting or using chemical munitions against peaceful demonstrators, a ruling widely reported and cited as curbing enforcement tactics ^{[7] [3] [5] [6]}. Those rulings are framed as judicial checks on executive enforcement actions and are the subject of appeals by the Justice Department, but none of the reports claim any judge was arrested ^{[5] [8]}.

4. Separate local-judge arrest reports are not the same as a federal-judge arrest

One local outlet referenced a Minnesota Court of Appeals judge charged with suspected DWI, which is a state-level matter distinct from the federal judiciary and is not linked in the reporting to the immigration-enforcement litigation or to any federal-judge arrest ^[4]. The sources do not identify any federal judge in Minnesota being arrested or charged; conflating a state appellate judge’s DWI charge with the federal judiciary would be inaccurate based on the available reporting ^[4].

5. What the sources do not say — limits of the record and possible sources of confusion

None of the provided articles report or suggest that a federal judge in Minnesota was arrested; instead they emphasize arrests by federal agents of protesters and residents, judicial rulings limiting agent conduct, and DOJ appeals of those orders ^{[1] [3] [5] [8]}. If claims are circulating that a federal judge was detained, those claims are not substantiated in the wire reporting and mainstream coverage compiled here; this analysis is limited to the supplied sources and cannot rule out later developments or reporting beyond them ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Why the distinction matters and the political context

The distinction between judges issuing restraints on enforcement and judges being arrested is material in a politically charged environment where legal developments and law-enforcement actions are weaponized rhetorically: the stories show federal courts acting as brakes on federal enforcement tactics while state and federal officials spar over operations and investigations, but the record provided shows no incident of a federal judge in Minnesota being arrested — narratives that insinuate otherwise may be conflating separate events or leveraging isolated state-level judicial charges for political effect ^{[5] [8] [4]}.