Appeals court restores ICE authority to use force against Minnesota protesters

MINNESOTA — A federal appeals court on Monday stayed a lower court ruling, lifting restrictions that had barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting, detaining, or using pepper spray on protesters without probable cause.

The three-judge panel for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it reviewed video footage and determined the protesters' behavior was "largely not peaceful."

U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez previously issued a preliminary injunction against ICE on Jan. 16. Menendez ruled at the time that federal agents likely violated protesters' First and Fourth Amendment rights during an enforcement action called Operation Metro Surge.

The underlying lawsuit accuses the Department of Homeland Security and ICE of violating the civil rights of six protesters.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the appeals court's decision a "victory against judicial activism." She added that "reckless" efforts to undermine law enforcement would not stand.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a significant victory to the Department of Justice, providing a legal tailwind for the administration’s hardline enforcement agenda. The ruling, while centered on a Minnesota dispute, transcends local jurisdiction; it represents a deepening confrontation within the American judicial system between First Amendment protections and the expanded authority of federal agencies to maintain public order.

By staying a lower court’s injunction, the appellate panel signaled a clear preference for law enforcement’s operational discretion during periods of civil unrest. The court’s determination that the events in question were "largely non-peaceful" establishes a consequential precedent within the circuit. This logic could effectively broaden the legal justification for aggressive crowd-control measures in future demonstrations, potentially impacting a wide array of civil actions beyond the immediate scope of immigration policy.

The case also highlights the intense political polarization surrounding the role of the courts. While Attorney General Bondi characterized the lower court's initial intervention as "reckless judicial activism," advocates for the protesters viewed it as a vital check on executive overreach. This appellate decision temporarily shifts the balance of power back toward federal authorities, granting them greater latitude and potentially lowering the legal risks associated with controversial enforcement tactics while the merits of the case continue to be litigated.

This ruling strikes at the core of Vietnamese-American communities, especially for those dedicated to immigrant rights advocacy. By authorizing more aggressive ICE tactics, the court risks creating a "chilling effect," discouraging many from exercising their right to protest out of fear of arrest or violence. For families navigating the complexities of the immigration system—from small business owners in the nail salon and phở industries to those awaiting F2B visa sponsorships—any expansion of ICE authority heightens the sense of vulnerability. It fosters a climate of fear and uncertainty regarding enforcement actions in community hubs like Little Saigon.