Metro Surge Litigation and Associated Documents

On the afternoon of February 5, 2026 two unidentified individuals (the Victims) were driving eastbound on Highway 62 when they saw a large SUV driving illegally up the shoulder behind them. Believing that the SUV was trying to cut in traffic, the Victims moved their car over to block part of the shoulder and “cut him off a little bit.” After briefly blocking the SUV’s path they pulled back into regular traffic allowing it to pass, at which point the SUV pulled up alongside the Victim’s car and the driver, Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr., pointed a handgun at them through his driver’s side window, yelled something the Victims couldn’t make out, and sped off, still on the shoulder. The Victims were obviously frightened by this and called 911. Thanks to video they got of the SUV’s license plate it was discovered that Morgan is an ICE agent, and was returning to the Whipple Building at the end of his shift at the time of the incident. That is something the Victims could not have known at the time because Morgan was driving an unmarked rental car, had no sirens or lights on, and was not wearing any kind of identifying uniform. One of the Victims stated that he believed Morgan was a “crazy person driving down the road aiming guns at people,…the type of individual that should [not] be out there but they are.” (Morgan Complaint Warrant p. 4) On March 16, 2026 the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO) filed charges against Morgan, two felony counts of 2nd degree assault with a dangerous weapon. These were the first charges to be filed against an ICE agent for their conduct related to the Metro Surge. In the HCAO’s announcement of these charges they emphasized that “[t]he timeline to investigate, review, and arrive at a charging decision in this case is shorter than other incidents under investigation due to the State Patrol’s ability to conduct its investigation without obstruction or interference.” This is much of the reason the first charges are being brought in this case rather than the more high profile cases such as Renee Good’s or Alex Pretti’s, because in those cases the publicity has resulted in a concerted effort by the federal government to gatekeep the evidence necessary to build a successful case. It’s important to remember that this is a really important milestone that will likely set the foundation for those bigger cases down the line, so choosing a good first case is a thoughtful strategic choice that will hopefully help all the efforts that follow. Morgan turned himself in on Thursday May 21, 2026 before being released on $100,000 bail with several conditions including not interacting with any witnesses and not possessing a firearm. He has also retained Ryan Pacyga as his defense attorney. His Omnibus Hearing is scheduled for June 29th 2026, where he will either plead guilty or a trial date will be set.

On January 14, 2026, Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant, was shot by Christian Castro, an ICE agent, in the leg through his front door. Castro and the Department of Homeland Security claimed that Sosa-Celis and his friend, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, attacked him with shovels and brooms, he then fired one shot at them, and then they fled inside their home. As a result they were charged with assaulting an officer. However on April 6, 2026, the City of Minneapolis released video footage of the shooting, which contradicted Castro’s report showing that Aljorna was tackled by Castro, they were separated by Sosa Celis long enough to flee into the house, and then Castro stood in the yard and shot through the closed front door. After the footage was  released, the government dropped the charges of assaulting an officer against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna. On May 18, 2026 the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO) officially charged Castro with four felony counts of 2nd degree assault with a deadly weapon and one misdemeanor count of falsely reporting a crime. More details about those charges and their possible sentences can be found in the Complaint Warrant below. On the HCAO website’s post about these charges it states that this case is “likely to result in an attempt to ‘remove’ this case to federal court. Should a judge grant removal, it will still be prosecuted by HCAO attorneys, under Minnesota Statute. And should it end in conviction, it will be ineligible for presidential pardon.” On May 29th Castro was arrested in Texas with assistance from the Texas Rangers, currently his court-appointed lawyer is Salvador Garcia, and Castro has refused to waive extradition. That means that for him to be brought to Minnesota to face these charges, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz must officially request extradition from Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Walz sent an extradition request on June 5th to Abbott, who has not yet responded. ICE has criticized this prosecution as a ‘political stunt’ and characterized it as inappropriate because there is an ‘ongoing investigation’ at the federal level, and it’s unclear how that sentiment will sway Abbott’s decision. We will update this page when we know more.

Renee Good was a U.S. citizen who was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross while trying to drive away from him on January 7th 2026. There are lots of good sources for the details surrounding her murder and since nearly everyone in the country knows her story now, we are not going to include that information here. Our focus is specifically on the potential future criminal charges and civil lawsuits that will arise in the future in response to her murder.

Criminal Case

The state of Minnesota has committed itself to investigating her death and determining whether to press charges but have been stymied by the federal government’s refusal to share their evidence (See Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Mullin and State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice below for more information on that).

Civil Case

On the civil side of things, Renee’s family has chosen to pursue a civil action against Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who murdered her. They are represented by Romanucci and Blandin (A Chicago based firm that represented George Floyd’s family) and Minneapolis attorney Kevin Riach. Specifically they have chosen to make a claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) rather than what is known as a Bivens claim. A Bivens claim (named after the case that created it: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)) is a claim that allows you to sue a federal officer directly for a constitutional violation. However, the Court has limited that right to the point of practical nonexistence. One of the attorneys in this case released a witness statement on the Path to Accountability for Federal Officers and Agencies that lays out the obstacles to bringing a case like this for those who are interested. Romanucci and Blandin have committed themselves to transparency regarding the process in this case and post updates to their website here. Once there is more substantive information about the lawsuit or criminal charges we will add them here.

On January 24th Alex Pretti, an ICU Nurse for the US Department of Veteran’s Affairs was shot and killed by two DHS officers, who fired more than ten shots in roughly five seconds. All for trying to help another person recording the officers who had been shoved to the ground. Many of the witnesses who recorded the incident were promptly arrested and temporarily detained in the Whipple building. State investigators were not allowed access to the scene, a repeat of what happened after Renee Good’s murder. While the DHS has refused to release the names of the officers who killed Pretti, an investigation by ProPublica claims to have identified them as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.

Criminal Case

The state of Minnesota has committed itself to investigating her death and determining whether to press charges but have been stymied by the federal government’s refusal to share their evidence (See Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension v. Noem and State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice below for more information on that). However, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on January 30th that the DOJ was launching a civil rights probe into his shooting. He also stated that such a probe was not warranted in the shooting of Renee Good, but didn’t say why.

Civil Case

Pretti’s parents are being represented by Steve Schleicher of Maslon, former special prosecutor in the case against Derek Chauvin, his younger sister Micayla is represented by Anthony Cotton of Kuchler & Cotton in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

On January 19th local Hmong American man ChongLy Scott Thao was taken from his home by ICE agents while only in his underwear despite the freezing temperatures and snow on the ground. The agents had broken down his door at gunpoint without a warrant.  They then drove him around until they determined that he was in fact an American citizen, at which point they drove him back home. You likely have seen photos of this arrest, because they quickly went viral as a powerful demonstration of the widespread senseless cruelty being committed by DHS officers during the Metro Surge.

On April 13th 2026 Ramsey County Attorney John Choi and Sheriff Bob Fletcher announced (See Choi v. U.S. DHS, Press Announcement below) an ongoing investigation into the agents in this case to determine if they should be prosecuted for any crimes. In particular they are looking into potential charges of kidnapping, burglary and false imprisonment. Pursuant to that investigation Ramsey County Attorneys have been requesting information from the federal government necessary for this investigation. As part of the ongoing case demanding Federal cooperation in these DHS agent investigations (State of Minnesota v. U.S. Department of Justice) Ramsey and Hennepin county attorneys have been sending ‘Touhy requests’, which are demands for official information from the government when it isn’t a party in a particular case. We have included the Ramsey County Attorney’s office March 20th 2026 Touhy request letter  for this investigation in the Repository below (Choi v. U.S. DHS, Touhy Letter).

On July 15th 2026, Choi and Fletcher announced that they had officially brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to obtain evidence necessary to determine whether they could bring criminal charges and if so against whom for the actions on January 19th. The complaint states that “[b]ased on the investigation so far, it is presumed that the masked and armed individuals involved were officers of one or more DHS agencies, although agents could not be individually identified” (Choi v. U.S. DHS, Complaint, p. 3) which again highlights the problems created by ICE agents having no visible official identification. In the press conference Sheriff Fletcher added that their attempts to identify them via Flock cameras was unsuccessful because they changed their license plates. This lawsuit comes only two days after the federal government voluntarily handed over evidence to Hennepin County regarding the shooting of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Sosa-Celis, which made Ramsey County hopeful. One difference between Hennepin County’s lawsuit and this one is that the former was targeted primarily at the Department of Justice, while this one is aimed at the Department of Homeland Security. This case is ongoing and we will provide updates here as they become available.

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office announced that they are investigating Gregory Bovino for an incident on January 21st where he threw a tear gas canister into a crowd near Mueller Park.

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office announced that another incident they are investigating for potential criminal charges is the clash between ICE agents and observers outside Roosevelt High School on January 7th.

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (HCAO) announced that there are 17 instances of potential ICE agent criminal activity being investigated by their office, including the ones that have been identified already. Most of the investigations can’t be discussed publicly yet, because of the victims’ privacy rights, but they are ongoing. As a result of the federal government’s unwillingness to cooperate with these investigations most of the evidence has been obtained through the HCAO’s Transparency and Accountability Project (TAP) which invites citizens with evidence of potential DHS officer misconduct to submit it to their office to assist in these investigations. If you have information that you think might be helpful we encourage you to submit it through that linked TAP portal. For more information regarding the process for prosecuting Federal agents Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has made an informative video to explain what the next steps might look like.

On June 16th U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen unsealed an indictment against 15 ‘Antifa’ protestors and charged them with one count of conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, one count of solicitation to commit a crime of violence, one count of interstate threats, two counts of interstate stalking, one count of assault of a federal officer, and one count of destruction of federal property. Most of the 94 page indictment (See U.S. v. Sant et al., Indictment below) focuses on actions taken by these protesters designed specifically to protect themselves and their community against the unlawful actions of DHS officers. Additionally, several things they are being charged for are things DHS officers have been doing to community members throughout Operation Metro Surge. In particular the indictment highlights how the protestors were following agents around the Twin Cities and keeping a database of ICE’s vehicles and personnel when they could, something that we have a lot of evidence of ICE doing to protestors as a form of intimidation. Two of the protestors were also charged with ‘Interstate Stalking’ for following an ICE agent to his home in Hudson Wisconsin, something ICE agents have also been doing to intimidate legal observers and protestors. You can see lots of evidence of that behavior from ICE outlined in the Tincher & Hussen, Consolidated Declarations of Intimidated Observers document below. Additionally, one was charged with destruction of government property for kicking an agent’s vehicle, and another was charged with assaulting a federal officer for side-swiping his car and ‘injuring’ him. Although, when pressed, Rosen refused to say whether any agents were injured at all. At the time of writing only one of the 15 people charged are not in custody. All of those who have had their first appearances have been released on their own recognizance (no money bail) and with the condition that they don’t speak to their codefendants. This case marks a notable escalation of the Federal government’s attempt to suppress dissent, especially in light of the FBI search of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative’s Office and questioning of their staff last week. It is likely that other organizations are already under investigation and could face similar charges in the future. Some at the press conference seemed to doubt the success of these charges, noting that of the 36 previous protest charges brought by Rosen’s office 18 have failed, a fact he wasn’t happy to be confronted with. In general, all the questions at this press conference seemed all aimed at poking the obvious holes in these charges. In response to the press conference many community members showed up to the federal courthouse just hours later to observe some of the defendant’s arraignments, when there weren’t enough seats for everyone who showed up, the remainder decided to peacefully protest in front of the courthouse to show their support. Then the U.S. Marshals deployed pepper spray on the protestors and threw at least two of them violently to the ground, apparently in order to close the courthouse door. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available. Fourteen of the fifteen codefendants (all but Kyle Wagner) are next due in court for their arraignment and status hearing on July 1st.

On January 20th 2026 six federal grand-jury subpoenas were sent to the record custodians of numerous Minnesota government offices requesting records related to the enforcement of federal immigration laws starting on January 1st, 2025. They were sent to (1) the Governor’s office, (2) the Minneapolis Mayor’s office, (3) the St. Paul Mayor’s office, (4) the state Attorney General’s office, (5) the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, and (6) the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Those parties then moved to ‘quash’ those subpoenas, which functionally means nullifying them. Grand juries notoriously have a lot of discretion to investigate, not even requiring probable cause to demand evidence or witnesses. However, a subpoena can be quashed in two circumstances, (1) if complying with it would be unreasonable or oppressive, and (2) if the targets were selected out of malice or in order to harass them. On June 22nd 2026, Judge Schiltz determined the subpoenas were improperly granted and primarily meant to “coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration laws and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.” (In re: Subpoenas, Order Granting Motion to Quash, p. 14). In coming to that conclusion the Judge cited extensively to the public record surrounding the subpoenas including Trump’s many public statements alluding to ‘retribution’ and ‘consequences’ for Minnesota’s ‘defiance.’ For those interested in the more specific references the Judge relied on in this case you can look at the In re: Subpoenas, Order Granting Motion to Quash document below on pages 16-17. Judge Schiltz sums up his overall reasoning quite nicely when he says “The Court has no doubt that [the subpoenas] were [issued for a forbidden purpose]. On the one hand, the evidence that the challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming. On the other hand, the Department [of Justice] has struggled – without success – to identify a single plausible investigatory justification for the subpoenas.” (In re: Subpoenas, Order Granting Motion to Quash, p. 15-16). This case is ongoing and we will provide updates here as they become available.

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) On April 20th Minnesota filed an amended complaint to which the federal government replied by filing a motion to dismiss the case. On May 13th both sides were supposed to attend a mandatory pretrial conference to determine the scope of discovery and various other logistic aspects of the case. However, the federal government refused to attend and then filed a motion to stay discovery until their motion to dismiss has been resolved. Following the June 22nd hearing regarding the motion to stay discovery, the judge granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Rather than staying discovery entirely pending the determination on the motion to dismiss, the judge allowed for an amount of limited early discovery covering just what would be relevant to their positions regarding the motion to dismiss and any evidence that has a risk of dissipating over time. The parties must meet before July 6th to determine a timeline for that discovery privately, and should any disagreements arise they should summarize them in a report to the court no later than July 13th. So, we likely won’t know until then how much, if at all, the government is cooperating with this limited discovery. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

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. The latest is that the federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, but there is a dispute over whether the plaintiff’s standing (right to bring the case) should be judged based on their first complaint or their amended complaint. That matters because the amended complaint was filed February 13th which was one day after the date by which the ‘drawdown’ of the Metro Surge was supposed to be complete. So the government is arguing that at the time the amended complaint was filed, the plaintiffs had no standing to bring a case challenging the conduct of the Metro Surge because it was already over. As residents of the Twin Cities know, the ‘drawdown’ did not end the presence of DHS agents let alone the unconstitutional conduct of those agents. Both sides filed briefs on that issue on May 20th, and now we are just waiting to see what the Judge thinks.

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. On June 11th the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.

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.

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-Celis 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. The next deadline for this case is July 6th, when any motions for summary judgement from either side are due.

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. After misconduct by prosecutors in Chicago regarding grand jury proceedings against protesters came to light, the defendants in this case sought to have the grand jury material released as well due to suspicions of misconduct similar to that found in Chicago. On June 10th the judge denied that request because the defendant’s did not allege any specific misconduct they had reason to suspect the prosecutors in this case engaged in when seeking the indictment. Discovery in this case is ongoing and the current schedule has pretrial motions due on June 24th and responses to those motions due on July 26th. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

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. For more information regarding the utilization of these 287(g) agreements by the Trump Administration we recommend the ACLU Report: Deputized for Disaster. On May 22nd the Judge remanded this case back to the District Court of the State of Minnesota, Third Judicial District, County of Freeborn. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

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.

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 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. On May 6th the Judge denied the Plaintiff’s motion for a stay or preliminary injunction. Defendants have until September 14, 2026 to respond to the Complaint. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

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. The government’s response to the Plaintiff’s Complaint is due on June 22nd. This case is ongoing and we will continue to update this page as new information becomes available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.