Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Warren E. Burger Library

What is Going On? Legal Analysis and Resources Related to the Federal Enforcement Surge in Minnesota

Last updated: 4/17/2026   This page aggregates timely analysis from Mitchell Hamline faculty and curated resources. New materials will be added on a rolling basis. Mitchell Hamline faculty are often asked to offer their expertise, and the current moment has called for many of them to help provide information and clarify quickly escalating situations as people ask- what is going on? This page will offer our faculty media appearances in one place, along with educational resources from Mitchell Hamline faculty and other trusted sources in the community.

This content is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Viewing this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals with specific legal questions about immigration enforcement should consult a qualified attorney. The views expressed are those of the individual speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

Law Professors Explain: Videos

Below are a series of videos of Mitchell Hamline professors interviewing one another, accompanied by supporting resources.

Statement from Mitchell Hamline School of Law Faculty

Members of the faculty have written and signed a statement about the federal enforcement surge.

Outside Resources

Media Perspectives from our Faculty

 

Overview of Ongoing or Resolved Cases 

Here we have listed out all of the cases we are tracking in relation to Operation Metro Surge, and provided a (relatively) short summary of the relevant information for each one. At the bottom of the page you will find our Document Repository, which has all of the most important documents from the following cases. The documents we have curated are referenced throughout the summaries to help readers know which ones they might be interested in taking a closer look at for more information. For your convenience we have also given each case a short descriptive title. 

 

State of Minnesota v. Noem

The Metro Surge as a Whole is Illegal Case

This case is, in many ways, all the other cases rolled up into one, because it argues that the Operation Metro Surge as a whole violates the law in five distinct ways First, it violates Minnesota’s 10th amendment rights by infringing on their police power. Second, the singling out of Minnesota violates the principle of equal sovereignty of all states, which is quite a unique argument. Third, the operation is arbitrary and capricious thus violating the Administrative Procedures Act. Fourth, they have engaged in unlawful retaliation for protected 1st amendment action. Finally, the operation exceeds the president’s constitutional and statutory authority.

When initially moving for a temporary restraining order in this case the state only raised the first two arguments, but was unsuccessful. Notably this case was heard by Judge Menendez, who ordered the preliminary injunction in Tincher v. Noem which was stayed by the 8th Circuit. In the ‘Order Denying TRO,’ which you can find below, she cites that 8th Circuit stay as one reason she denied the injunction in this case, stating that “[i]f that injunction went too far, then the one at issue here–halting the entire operation–certainly would.” (p.29) The most recent update is that the judge agreed to give both parties more time to amend their complaints, which are now due on April 20th. 

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Tincher v. Noem

The Retaliation against Observers & Protestors Case

This case was brought primarily by observers of and protestors against ICE who claim that they were retaliated against for exercising their first amendment rights. In the complaint you can see that the ICE actions at issue include intimidating peaceful observers/protestors, retaliatory arrests, use of excessive force, and use of chemical agents such as pepper spray and tear gas. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota heard the case first and the judge ordered a preliminary injunction against the federal immigration officers. That means the Court ordered them to stop certain actions until the case is fully decided, in order to prevent them from continuing to potentially violate people’s rights until the court finally decides the case. The injunction instructed them to stop (1) retaliating against peaceful observers/protestors; (2) arresting people without probable cause; (3) using chemical agents in a retaliatory manner; and (4) stopping vehicles without reasonable suspicion.

The injunction was appealed to the 8th Circuit which stayed the preliminary injunction, which prevented it from going into effect until the case was decided. The 8th Circuit claims that the injunction is too broad because it covers too many people, and too vague because it requires federal agents to know what counts as “peaceful” or “retaliation.” In addition the court weighs the potential harms of staying the injunction and finds that preventing ICE agents from doing their job ‘irreparably harms the government.’ On the other hand, the harm to the observers/protestors is assumed to be low since the injunction only demands that the agents follow the law, because then it is just ‘preserv[ing] the status quo.’ quoting Org. for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, 978 F.3d 603, 609 (8th Cir. 2020). You can see both this order and the original preliminary injunction in the document repository below.

Now the government is working on a motion to dismiss the case, and should that fail they are scheduled to have a hearing regarding discovery and next steps on May 4th 2026.

 

Hussen v. Noem

The Racially Motivated Arrests Case

This case focuses specifically on those who are being targeted for arrest by ICE, and is brought by three such individuals. The Plaintiffs’ goal is to get a preliminary injunction preventing ICE agents from: (1) stopping people without probable cause usually because of their race; (2) arresting people for immigration purposes without a warrant or probable cause that the person is ‘removable,’ including U.S. citizens; and (3) arresting people without warrants or probable cause showing them to be a flight risk. These actions are alleged to violate the 4th amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures, the Equal Protection clause, as well as federal statutory law governing warrantless arrests.

The Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop ICE agents from continuing those unlawful actions, but that required the provisional certification of a class of people who would be protected by an injunction. The Judge denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on the dual grounds that the Plaintiffs lacked the standing required for injunctive relief and that the prospective class of affected people could not be certified. In regard to the lack of standing, the judge found specifically that the Plaintiffs could not demonstrate a risk of future irreparable harm, unless it was assumed that the government would continue their unlawful conduct, which is contradicted by the drawdown of federal forces. 

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem

The Access to Evidence Regarding ICE Shootings Case

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) brought this lawsuit against Kristi Noem and other federal government leaders challenging how federal officers denied local law enforcement access to evidence after the murder of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The BCA argues that federal law enforcement officers on the scene after the shooting denied BCA personnel access to the scene for investigation, asked BCA employees to leave, did not maintain a perimeter which allowed potential evidence to be spoiled, then allegedly removed evidence from the scene and took it with them. Federal authorities are continuing to deny the BCA access to evidence related to the shooting, which the BCA says violates the principles of federalism, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The BCA sought a court order to enjoin the defendants from concealing, destroying, or delaying access to evidence.

On January 24, 2026, the date of Pretti’s death, the court granted a temporary restraining order that enjoined (prevented) defendants from destroying or altering evidence related to the murder of Alex Pretti. On February 7, 2026, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order, holding that he did not have enough evidence that federal authorities would continue to mishandle evidence.

On March 24th the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, because the federal government made it clear that they would not be cooperative. The next day they filed the following case, State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice, in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking functionally the same relief.

 

State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C)

The We Are Still Demanding Access to Evidence Regarding ICE Shootings Case

This case was brought against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as a result of their continued refusal to turn over evidence in the Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Cesar Sosa-Cellis cases. After the DOJ ignored numerous deadlines to provide that evidence, Minnesota brought this case claiming that the DOJ’s refusal to cooperate is not an isolated discretionary call but rather an arbitrary and capricious policy that violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the 10th amendment. The goal of this case is to get a court order forcing the DOJ to share the evidence Minnesota authorities have been requesting, but many are concerned that even if that is the outcome, the DOJ might simply refuse to comply. The complaint has been included below and goes through the lengthy process State officials have gone through to try and obtain evidence from the DOJ.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

U.S.A. v. Levy-Armstrong et al.

The Church Protestors Case Ft. Don Lemon

This case relates to a January 18, 2026 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN. They protested at this particular church because one of the lead pastors is also the Field Office Director for the St. Paul ICE Office. Later, Nekima Levy-Armstrong and 38 others were indicted on charges of (1) conspiring against the right of religious freedom at a place of worship, and (2) injuring, intimidating, and interfering with exercise of the right of religious freedom at a place of worship, a violation of ​​The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Among the 39 people indicted were local activists and two journalists, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort.

For more information on the charges in this case we recommend this Lawfare article which goes into more depth about the unusual nature of the charges and the challenges the Plaintiffs face moving forward.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Corey-Gruenes v. Freeborn County

The County Jail’s Cooperation with ICE Case

This case involves 287(g) agreements, which allow the federal government to provide funding to local law enforcement in exchange for their help enforcing federal immigration laws. Four Freeborn County residents and taxpayers filed this lawsuit challenging Sheriff Ryan Shea and the County’s decision to enter into a new 287(g) agreement in 2025. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit after the Minnesota Attorney General’s office issued guidance that Minnesota law does not authorize sheriffs to enter 287(g) agreements; the agreement must be approved by a resolution of the County Board of Commissioners. They argue that the County entered into an illegal agreement which will waste taxpayer dollars, open the County to liability for illegal arrests and detentions, and erode local trust with law enforcement. 

A motion hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2026.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

U.H.A. v. Bondi

The Refugee Targeting Case

This case is a class action lawsuit by a group of refugees represented by several nonprofit organizations challenging the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening). Operation PARRIS has been characterized by “warrantless arrest[s], unauthorized detention[s], and coercive interrogation of refugees.” Plaintiffs (several refugees who have been targeted) allege that the operation violates the 4th and 5th amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). On January 28th the District Court of Minnesota granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the government to stop arresting/detaining any refugee without permanent resident status, and to release any refugees still in custody because of Operation PARRIS.

The Plaintiff’s original complaint alleging the government’s unlawful actions in more detail as well as the January 28th TRO are included in the document repository below. The government asked the Court to dissolve the TRO on the grounds that the Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, but the Court refused. Next the Court will have a preliminary injunction hearing, which will determine if the government will be prevented from continuing Operation PARRIS until the final decision in the case. 

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

The Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS

The Access to Counsel at Whipple Case

This case is a class action against ICE and other federal agencies and actors challenging how detainees were denied access to counsel at the Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge. The plaintiffs alleged that the staff at Whipple repeatedly refused to allow detainees  to speak with their attorneys, even during the hours the building was open to the public. People arrested for alleged immigration violations were being transferred out of Minnesota to other detention facilities before they could meet with counsel, which often presented significant legal consequences. They even threatened to arrest an attorney for attempting to visit their detained client.

On March 26, 2026, Judge Nancy Brasel entered a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to allow detainees access to counsel within one hour of their detention and before being transferred out of state. She also ordered defendants to allow detainees free phone calls to talk to counsel. Importantly, the order also prohibits ICE from transferring detainees out of state during the first 72 hours of detention, giving them time to speak with counsel and potentially file for habeas relief. 

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Fridley School Dist. v. Noem

The ICE is Disrupting Education Case

Fridley Public Schools, Duluth Public Schools, and non-profit Education Minnesota sued Kristi Noem and other federal government leaders and agencies over their rescission of the “sensitive spaces” policy. For decades, this policy made schools mostly off-limits for immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs describe how ICE conducted immigration enforcement operations at several schools, bus stops, and daycare centers throughout the Twin Cities as a part of Operation Metro Surge. They argue they were harmed by the ICE operations because some schools had to close unexpectedly; many had to pivot to online learning options; student attendance dropped severely during this time; school social workers had to focus on getting students food instead of completing their job responsibilities, and these challenges led to disrupted learning and educational setbacks for students.

The plaintiffs allege multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding the Trump administration’s rescission of the previous sensitive spaces policy and seek to enjoin ICE and DHS from conducting immigration enforcement at or near school property and bus stops absent a judicial warrant or genuinely exigent circumstances. 

Defendants have until May 21, 2026 to respond to the Complaint.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Gibson Brown v. Mullin 

The Illegal Home Entry Memo Case

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought this suit against DHS challenging the leaked May 2025 DHS Memo instructing officers to enter homes to conduct arrests without judicial warrants. The ACLU is hoping to pursue this case on behalf of all those who were victimized by this policy particularly during Operation Metro Surge. The memo itself, while addressed to ‘all ICE personnel’ seems to have been actually only distributed to certain officials who then relayed the information to ICE agents verbally or by allowing them to view the memo under supervision before returning it. It claims that I-205 Forms give ICE agents the authority to use “necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the [an individual’s] residence.” (Leaked Memo, p.7). That is directly contradicted not only by existing case law but by DHS’s own legal and training material, all of which stresses that only a judicial warrant (one signed by a judge) can allow entry into someone’s residence. I-205 Forms, while they may look like judicial warrants and are similar in some respects, are not signed off by a judge. That understanding has governed DHS agents’ behavior since its inception in 2001.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

State of Minnesota v. Morgan 

First State Prosecution for Assault Against ICE Officer

On April 16, 2026 Hennepin County Attorney’s Office announced that they are charging ICE Agent Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr. with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, which is potentially the first instance of a state pursuing criminal charges against a federal agent for conduct that could be considered related to their job. There is currently a nationwide warrant out for his arrest. The charges are based on an altercation between Morgan and two individuals on February 5th on Highway 62, where Morgan was driving on the shoulder in order to be directly next to the victim’s car before drawing a gun and pointing it at the victims. The charging document with his warrant is included in the Document Repository below. This case is a really important step towards accountability for Metro Surge, because unlike in the more high profile cases of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, there are few evidentiary obstacles in this case which make it a good opportunity to bring such a case.

You can read more about what Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has to say about these charges here and here.

This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

 

Habeas Cases

Since January there have been over 1,000 habeas cases in Minnesota alone, and so it would not be possible for us to track all of them in this document repository alongside the above discussed cases. There are a handful of exceptions which we have chosen to include below because they are either habeas cases related to highly publicized arrests (i.e. Liam Ramos) or cases with judicial orders that are particularly important (i.e. Orders threatening contempt of the government). If you are interested in any habeas cases that are not in our repository, ProPublica is maintaining a tracker specifically for habeas cases, you can filter it for only those in Minnesota and even download a list of all of the cases it’s counting. You can find that tracker here.

 

Arias v. Noem

Liam Ramos’ Case

This habeas case is the only one featured (so far) from out of state, and that is because it relates to Liam Ramos, the five-year old detained along with his father Adrian on January 20th whose photo went viral. Liam and his family entered the country legally from Ecuador in 2024 and had pending asylum cases and no criminal record (in the US or Ecuador) at the time of their detention. According to current available reporting, ICE agents approached Adrian’s car as he pulled into their driveway after picking Liam up from school. The superintendent of Liam’s school alleged that after agents removed Liam from the car, they walked him up to his front door and had him knock “in order to see if anyone else was home – essentially using a five-year-old as bait.”(x) Agent’s claim that his mother, who was home, ‘REFUSED to take custody’ of him, but others at the scene clarify that Adrian and neighbors told her not to open the door out of fear she would also be arrested. Despite another adult from his home, numerous neighbors, and even seemingly some members of the school board offering to take Liam, he was detained.

Shortly thereafter Liam and Adrian were flown to Texas where they were put in the now infamous Dilley detention facility where Liam quickly fell ill. On February 31st Judge Biery granted their habeas relief in a particularly scathing opinion, it’s only three pages long, and we highly recommend reading it for yourself. It’s the only document from this case included in the repository below. This case garnered a lot of media attention, and rightfully so, because of how clearly it epitomizes the “ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.” (Judge Biery, Arias v. Noem Opinion). 

While their habeas case has been decided, their fate remains up in the air. Less than a week after being released from Dilley and escorted home by Democrat Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro, the federal government moved to dismiss the Ramos’ asylum claims. In March, immigration judge John Burns (who was criticized in 2025 for using AI to present his opinions, and has an asylum case denial rate of 97.5%) granted the government’s motion to dismiss the Ramos’ asylum claims. The family’s lawyer is appealing that decision, but that process can take years to resolve. Then on April 4th, the federal government appealed Judge Biery’s grant of habeas relief from February, a move that is incredibly unusual according to their lawyer. Increasingly, the evidence seems to suggest that they are continuing to be targeted as a result of how prominent their story became.

So while it may have seemed as though Liam and his family’s horrifying ordeal was over in February, unfortunately their fight is far from over.

 

Tobay Robles v. Noem

The Case Where Judge Schiltz Calls out ICE for Ignoring Court Orders

In Tobay Robles’ habeas corpus case, the court ordered that defendants grant him a bond hearing within seven days or to release him immediately. Nine days later, he was still detained and was not given a hearing. On January 28th Judge Schiltz ordered that Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE, appear in court to explain why he should not be held in contempt for the government’s violations of court orders. The order stated that, “The Court’s patience is at an end” and asserted that ICE violated at least 96 court orders in 74 cases during January 2026, attaching the list of violations to his decision. Most of these violations involved the government failing to release people from immigration custody or transferring them to detention out of state in violation of court orders in their case. Tobay Robles was released before the scheduled hearing, and Lyons was not required to appear.

While that should have been the end of it, the government evidently had more to say on the matter. In a supplemental order released nearly a month after the conclusion of the case (February 26th) Judge Schiltz revealed that he had received an email from Daniel Rosen, the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota accusing the Court of numerous mistakes in its accounting of ICE’s noncompliance. Rosen’s email explained his own staffs accounting of the cases’ noncompliance and concluded with: “Judge, please pardon me for being so direct, but your order of January 28 did not merely contain some errors…[it] was far beyond the pale of accuracy for an order that would be wielded so publicly and so sharply. The lawyers in my civil division didn’t deserve it.”(p.3) The email also contained a promise from the government to improve compliance with court orders, and a snide comment about the improvements they had already made that went “unrecognized by some on the bench.” (p.5)

Judge Schiltz then had his clerks independently check the accuracy of each case listed. He attached to this supplemental order Appendix A which is the same list of cases from the January 28th order but with context for each one. This highlighted that there were some mistakes in the original order, but it was not nearly as egregious as Rosen suggested, it found that 97 orders were violated in 66 cases, compared to the original claim of 96 orders in 74 cases. He also emphasized that “what those attorneys ‘didn’t deserve’ was the Administration sending 3000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow.”

Judge Schiltz also attached Appendix B, which is a list of compiled cases where ICE failed to comply with court orders after the January 28th order. Appendix B lists 113 more violated orders, in 77 additional cases. Judge Schiltz also stated that “[t]he Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt—again and again and again—to force the United States government  to comply with court orders…One way or another, ICE will comply with this Court’s orders.” (p.5, emphasis original). This supplemental order and its appendices are worth looking at for those who want to understand the sheer scope of the problem of noncompliance with court orders.

 

Soto Jimenez v. Bondi

The Case where Judge Provinzino Held U.S. Attorney in Contempt

This habeas case has been included in the document repository, because it highlights the incompetency of the federal government’s handling of habeas cases in the aftermath of Metro Surge. This is also one of the few cases in which a judge has held a U.S. Attorney in contempt and imposed sanctions. Rigoberto Soto Jimenez filed his habeas petition on February 2nd, and the court ordered the government to respond by the 5th. When the government failed to, the court ordered Rigoberto’s release in Minnesota by February 13th with all of his property returned. When the government failed to file a status update on the 17th as mandated, the judge discovered that they had released Rigoberto on the 12th in Texas without any of his identity documents. He was forced to spend the night in a shelter. His lawyer had to use his own flight miles to get Rigoberto home.

The judge ordered a hearing for February 18th with the government attorney responsible for this case, Matthew Isihara, to get Rigoberto his documents back and to determine whether they should be held in contempt or not. In the Order from Judge Provinzino you can see that “the Government had no idea what had happened in this case.” (p.3) The Order is worth a read if you want a more in depth understanding of how the influx of habeas cases from Metro Surge have negatively impacted the performance of the US attorneys and Assistant US Attorneys. The judge ultimately held that Isihara would pay $500 per day until Rigoberto’s documents were returned. The documents were overnighted to Minnesota and Isihara did not end up having to pay any fines.

On February 25th Isihara appealed the contempt finding in this case, claiming that a judge cannot hold an individual government attorney in contempt for the actions of the government. He claims that he had no personal ability to force the government to comply with court orders and so it’s unfair to punish and coerce him. Rigoberto has opposed this appeal on the grounds that Isihara didn’t even have to pay the fine, and there is ample evidence that Isihara failed to even tell the detention center to release Rigoberto, making his actions a direct cause of the failure to comply. This will go to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Miscellaneous Documents

 

Consolidated Contempt Hearings

Three judges (Bryan, Tunheim, and Provinzino) have each held contempt hearings for multiple habeas cases they have heard because the government was (and to our knowledge still is in some cases) not returning the belongings of arrestees upon their release. We have included the announcement of each of those hearings here in part because they highlight how common that is happening and to demonstrate the power that judges can wield in the face of so much unlawful behavior. 

 

Consolidated Declarations Regarding Intimidation and Retaliation against Protestors

We have taken twelve witness declarations from both Tincher v. Noem and Hussen v. Noem that demonstrate a pattern of behavior from ICE Agents in the Twin Cities. Seven of the declarations report that while individuals were exercising their First Amendment right to observe ICE Agents from their vehicles, they were led to their own homes by the agents they were following. Sometimes the Agents would even make a show of getting out to take pictures of the observers’ homes. One claimed that while watching ICE agents in a parking lot they approached him and initiated a hostile interaction during which they shouted “We’ll see on [the road he lives on].”(Tincher & Hussen, Consolidated Declarations of Intimidated Observers, p. 16). Three of the witnesses were led not to their homes, but the homes of their parents (in at least two of those cases the witnesses attributed this to their parent’s address still being on their ID). This indicates that ICE has been using their access to license plate reading technology to intimidate protestors, with at least one being told he was going to be added to a ‘domestic terrorist watchlist.’ (Tincher & Hussen, Consolidated Declarations of Intimidated Observers, p. 55). Finally, two of the witnesses report being pepper sprayed in the face in direct response to protected speech, one while driving a car which caused him to drive through an intersection at a red light. (Tincher & Hussen, Consolidated Declarations of Intimidated Observers, p. 33). These declarations are some of the best evidence available that ICE has been illegal misusing technology and less than lethal weapons to retaliate against people exercising their First Amendment rights. 

Document Repository

TitleContentDateLink
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Jr., 27-cr-26-9656Criminal Complaint2026/04/16Download
Gibson Brown v. Mullin, 26-cv-01131DHS Home Entry Memo2026/04/02Download
Gibson Brown v. Mullin, 26-cv-01131Complaint2026/04/02Download
State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice, 26-cv-01007Complaint2026/03/24Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law2026/03/09Download
Judge Tunheim Consolidated Contempt Hearing Announcement   2026/03/03Download
Tincher v. Noem & Hussen v. NoemConsolidated Declarations of Intimidated Observers  2026/02/27Download
Tobay Robles v. Noem, 26-cv-107Appendix B to Supplemental Order describing new cases of ICE noncompliance    2026/02/26Download
Tobay Robles v. Noem, 26-cv-107Appendix A to Supplemental Order expanding on cases of ICE noncompliance  2026/02/26Download
U.S. v. Nekima Levy Armstrong, 26-mj-40Superseding indictment      2026/02/26Download
Tobay Robles v. Noem, 26-cv-107Supplemental Order    2026/02/26Download
Judge Bryan Contempt Hearing AnnouncementConsolidates 28 cases where ICE violated orders for contempt hearing2026/02/26Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Declaration of ICE agent on ‘drawdown’  2026/02/23Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Declaration of CBP Officer about ‘drawdown’  2026/02/23Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Fourth Declaration of Kshithij Shrinath  2026/02/23Download
Soto Jimenez v. Bondi, 26-cv-957Order      2026/02/20Download
Tincher v. Noem, 25-cv-04669Amended Complaint2026/02/13Download
Fridley School Dist. v. Noem, 0:26-cv-01023Complaint    2026/02/12Download
Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS, 0:26-cv-00749Order granting Temporary Restraining Order      2026/02/12Download
Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS, 0:26-cv-00749Declaration of Attorney about Whipple conditions      2026/02/10Download
Arias v. Noem, SA:26-cv-415 (W.D. Tex.)Texas court opinion granting habeas2026/01/31Download
State of Minnesota v. Noem, 26-cv-190Order Denying TRO2026/01/31Download
United States v. Nekima Levy Armstrong et al., 26-mj-40Attorney public statement regarding arrest  2026/01/30Download
United States v. Nekima Levy Armstrong et al., 26-mj-40Grand Jury Indictment2026/01/29Download
U.H.A. v. Bondi, 26-cv-417Temporary Restraining Order2026/01/28Download
Advocates for Human Rights v. DHS, 0:26-cv-00749Complaint    2026/01/27Download
Tobay Robles v. Noem, 26-cv-107Order to Show Cause2026/01/26Download
Tincher v. Noem, 25-cv-46698th Circuit stay of injunction2026/01/26Download
Tobay Robles v. Noem, 26-cv-107Cancellation of Hearing2026/01/26Download
Barojas v. Bondi, 26-cv-531Order Granting Petition2026/01/24Download
Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem, 26-cv-628Order  2026/01/24Download
Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem, 26-cv-628Motion for Temporary Restraining Order  2026/01/24Download
Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem, 26-cv-628Complaint  2026/01/24Download
U.H.A. v. Bondi, 26-cv-417Complaint2026/01/23Download
United States v. Nekima Levy Armstrong et al., 26-mj-40District Court Order2026/01/23Download
In re: United States of America, 26-mj-40 (D. Minn.)Letter from Chief Judge Schlitz to Chief Judge Colloton  2026/01/23Download
In re: United States of America, 26-1135 (8th Cir.)Letter responding to Susan Bindler, Clerk of the 8th Circuit  2026/01/23Download
In re: United States of America, 26-1135 (8th Cir.)Emergency petition for writ of mandamus (8th Cir.)  2026/01/23Download
State of Minnesota v. Noem, 26-cv-190Amicus brief from States involved    2026/01/22Download
State of Minnesota v. Noem, 26-cv-190Amicus brief from local governments      2026/01/22Download
Tincher v. Noem, 25-cv-4669District Court Order2026/01/16Download
Gibson v. Bondi et al., 26-cv-172Release Order2026/01/15Download
State of Minnesota v. Noem, 26-cv-190Complaint (AG website)2026/01/12Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Brief for Preliminary Injunction2025/12/19Download
Hussen v. Noem, 26-cv-324Complaint2025/12/19Download
Corey-Gruenes v. Freeborn County, 24-CV-25-2086Complaint  2025/12/18Download
Corey-Gruenes v. Freeborn County, 24-CV-25-2086Ellison statement on legality of 287(g) agreements  2025/12/12Download