Judge Bars Federal Arrests and Pepper Spray on Peaceful Minneapolis Protesters

MINNEAPOLIS — U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez barred federal agents in Minneapolis from arresting, detaining, or using pepper spray, tear gas, or other crowd-control munitions against peaceful protesters and observers, unless there is reasonable suspicion of interference or crime.

Menendez issued the 83-page injunction on Friday (local time) in response to a lawsuit filed on December 17 against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies by six protesters and observers.

The order also restricts vehicle stops, prohibiting federal agents from stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles without evidence of obstruction.

The injunction sets rules for how federal agents, primarily from ICE and Border Patrol, can respond to protest activity tied to monitoring ICE operations in Minneapolis, while preserving authority to act when agents can show a legally recognized basis.

Menendez’s order prohibits arrests, detentions, and force against those engaged in “non-violent, unobstructive protest activity” and those who are merely observing or recording operations.

It does not impose a blanket prohibition on federal law enforcement activity, and the protections described by the court do not extend to unlawful conduct or interference.

“The government failed to explain why it is necessary for them to arrest and use force against peaceful observers.”

On vehicle stops, Menendez added: “There may be ample suspicion to stop cars. but that does not justify stops of cars not breaking the law.”

The injunction is limited geographically to the Twin Cities metropolitan area, covering Minneapolis and St. Paul rather than applying statewide.

That boundary matters for both protesters and federal agencies, because the order turns on whether individuals are peaceful and unobstructive, and on whether agents can articulate reasonable suspicion of a crime or interference.

The ruling follows a lawsuit filed as federal enforcement activity expanded in Minneapolis, drawing more people into street-level monitoring and protest, including legal monitors and journalists referenced in the order’s protections for observers.

The dispute intensified after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, 37, a mother of three, on January 7 during a neighborhood patrol monitoring ICE activities.

Video shows Good driving away from officers, according to the account in the case.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called Good’s actions “stalking and impeding” ICE agents and an act of “domestic terrorism” by trying to run over officers.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz disputed that claim, saying she posed no threat and demanding agent withdrawal.

The injunction arrives as Minneapolis faces a federal enforcement surge that local leaders said dwarfed the size of local police forces.

The Trump administration deployed nearly 3,000 heavily armed ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minneapolis, described by DHS as its “largest such operation in history.”

DHS has said the operation targeted alleged fraud in the Somali community, and officials indicated the operations continue to ramp up.

Against that backdrop, Menendez’s order drew a legal line between peaceful protest and conduct that crosses into obstruction or interference, in language aimed at restraining tactics used against peaceful protesters while leaving room for enforcement when agents can show reasonable suspicion.

The ruling’s practical effect is to limit arrests or detentions based on non-violent, unobstructive protest activity itself, and to bar the use of crowd-control munitions against people who are peacefully observing or recording.

For many street interactions, the decision turns on how agents justify their actions at the moment they take them, including whether there is reasonable suspicion that a person is interfering with officers or committing a crime.

Menendez’s vehicle-stop language sets a similar threshold, restricting traffic stops that are not tied to a reason to believe occupants are “forcibly obstructing or interfering” with agents.

The restrictions mirror broader national fights over the use of force by immigration-linked enforcement during public demonstrations, including litigation over riot control weapons.

The Twin Cities limits also mean the injunction does not automatically reach actions elsewhere in Minnesota, even as the case’s factual record and allegations may be watched beyond Minneapolis and St. Paul.

The legal protections described by Menendez explicitly focus on peaceful individuals and observers, including those recording operations, while making clear that the court is not conferring immunity for conduct that interferes with enforcement.

The case also unfolded alongside other Minnesota legal disputes over enforcement tools and oversight, including debate over how courts evaluate policing and enforcement practices after racial profiling rulings.

DHS, for its part, has framed the conflict as one involving constitutional rights on one hand and public disorder on the other, with a public warning about interference with law enforcement.

“The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly — not rioting. obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony.”

DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling, according to the account of reactions around the decision.

The Trump administration may appeal, a step that could change how long the restrictions remain in place or whether the scope is altered by a higher court.

Any appeal would likely focus on the injunction’s limits on arrests, detentions, and use of force against peaceful protesters and observers, and on the legal standards imposed for vehicle stops.

For Minneapolis demonstrators and the federal agents operating in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the near-term question is how quickly agencies issue guidance that reflects the court’s boundaries and how those rules play out during street encounters.

The lawsuit that prompted the injunction was filed on December 17 by six protesters and observers, naming DHS and other agencies, and the ruling describes a conflict over tactics used during protest activity connected to ICE monitoring.

Menendez’s reasoning, including her criticism that the government did not “explain why it is necessary for them to arrest and use force against peaceful observers,” signaled skepticism toward justifications offered for force and detention in circumstances involving peaceful individuals.

The order’s emphasis on “non-violent, unobstructive protest activity” also suggests that, in the court’s view, the central constitutional question is not whether the government may enforce the law, but whether the government may use certain tactics against people who are not interfering.

The federal deployment and the January 7 shooting of Good have also spurred political pushback in Minnesota, including legislative discussions over limits on ICE powers and the state’s response to federal operations, an effort tied to curbing ICE powers.

Beyond the injunction, the escalation has widened into separate legal action involving Minnesota’s top elected officials.

On Friday, the Justice Department issued grand jury subpoenas to Walz and Frey for alleged obstruction under 18 U.S.C. 372, which the government described in relation to conspiracies to impede federal officers.

Walz responded with a political attack on the move, calling it “weaponizing the justice system against your opponents,” and he noted there was no probe into Good’s shooter.

The subpoenas underscore that separate investigations and legal actions can proceed even as the injunction limits specific protest-related tactics in the Twin Cities.

They also highlight how the dispute over federal agents in Minneapolis is now unfolding on multiple fronts at once, from street enforcement and protest interactions to court supervision and political conflict.

At the center of Menendez’s injunction is a narrow but immediate constraint: peaceful protesters and peaceful observers in Minneapolis and St. Paul are shielded from certain arrest, detention, and crowd-control tactics unless agents can point to reasonable suspicion of interference or crime.

For now, the judge’s language sets the standard that will govern future confrontations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, while Walz warned of broader consequences, saying the subpoenas amounted to “weaponizing the justice system against your opponents.”