Author Archives: B. Velazquez, ACLU SDIC

Tincher v. Noem

Posted on by

Tincher et al. v. Noem et al., 0:25‑cv‑04669 (D. Minn., filed December 17, 2025)

On December 17, 2025, Tincher and five others challenged the federal government’s immigration raids and practices which ensued during “Operation Metro Surge.” This class action alleges indiscriminate immigration raids by masked, militarized federal agents who conducted arrests at homes, businesses, and on public streets. Plaintiffs contend that community members who observed or protested were subjected to harassment, excessive force, detention, and retaliation including being followed home, struck with chemical irritants or rubber bullets, and arrested without probable cause.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, including interference with free speech, free press, and peaceful assembly, as well as unlawful retaliation. They also assert Fourth Amendment violations for arrests without probable cause, unreasonable seizures, excessive force, and a civil conspiracy.

On December 18, 2025, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) asking the court to bar federal defendants from engaging in a range of alleged unlawful conduct relating to immigration enforcement operations. The requested protections included prohibiting dispersal or use of force without probable cause, limiting use of crowd control weapons absent immediate threats and warnings, barring interference with people recording federal law enforcement, safeguarding lawful movement and recording, and requiring visible identification and body-worn cameras.

At a December 19th status conference, the court converted the TRO motion into one for a preliminary injunction. On January 8th, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the conversion decision citing extraordinary circumstances, including the deployment of additional federal agents to Minneapolis and the January 7th fatal shooting of Renee Good.

On January 16, 2026, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part. The court prohibited federal agents from retaliating against individuals engaged in peaceful and unobstructive protests or observation, arresting or detaining people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime, or using pepper spray or similar crowd control weapons in retaliation for protected conduct. Federal agents were also prohibited from stopping and detaining drivers or passengers absent reasonable suspicion or forceful obstruction interference.

Defendants appealed and on January 26, 2026, the Eighth Circuit stayed the lower court’s ruling pending appeal finding that the government was likely to prevail on the merits and the injunction was too vague.

Following additional excessive force at the hand of federal agents, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2026. The amended complaint adds Customs and Border Protection as well as Gregory Bovino, Chief Border Patrol Agent, to the list of defendants. The complaint also adds five new plaintiffs.

The amended complaint alleges a policy and pattern of retaliation for investigating, recording, and protesting federal immigration agents’ activity in public. The amended complaint also alleges a policy and pattern of excessive force, the use of chemical agents, unlawful arrests, surveillance, and intimidation.

Documents

Counsel: ACLU of Minnesota, Ciresi Conlin, Forsgren Fisher, and Riach Law

Contact:  Teresa Nelson (tnelson@aclu-mn.org)

Press:

Minnesota v. Noem

Posted on by

State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis & City of St. Paul v. Noem et al., No. 26‑cv‑00190 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 12, 2026)

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol, among others, on January 12, 2026.

In December 2025, the federal government launched “Operation Metro Surge,” deploying thousands of immigration enforcement agents into Minnesota, including into the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The operation escalated and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Minnesota resident, Renee Good, on January 7, 2026. A second peaceful protester was killed on January 24, 2026, while litigation was pending. In response, Minnesota, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the operation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the Tenth amendment, First Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that Operation Metro Surge unlawfully intruded on state sovereignty, reflected unconstitutional animus toward the state’s democratic leadership, and was implemented without required administrative procedures. The state simultaneously sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the operation and prevent further unlawful conduct including racial profiling, excessive force, and retaliation.

On January 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court denied the TRO concluding that the state had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. The court also concluded that it lacked authority to suspend the operation, citing Eighth Circuit precedent cautioning against judicial interference with federal immigration enforcement efforts (Tincher v. Noem, 164 F.4th 1097 (8th Cir. 2026)).

Documents

Counsel: State of Minnesota Attorney General | Minneapolis City Attorney | Saint Paul City Attorneys

Contact:  Liz Kramer | liz.kramer@ag.state.mn.us

Press:


Mubashir Khalif Hussen v. Noem

Posted on by

Mubashir Khalif Hussen, et al, v. Noem, et al., No. 0:26-cv-00324 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 15, 2026)

On January 15, 2026, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and its subagencies, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt unlawful policies and practices in Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, dramatically escalated enforcement operations, deploying large numbers of masked agents in military-style gear throughout Minnesota. According to the complaint, these operations disproportionately targeted Somali and Latino residents under “Operation Metro Surge.”

Plaintiffs challenge what they describe as a policy of racial profiling, unlawful stops, and arrests that were carried out without warrants or probable cause, asserting violations of constitutional protections under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They argue that federal agents stopped people without reasonable suspicion of removability, arrested people without warrants and without probable cause to believe that those individuals are removable, and that federal agents made arrests without probable cause to believe there was flight risk. Plaintiffs allege individuals were detained solely based on perceived ethnicity, infringing on their rights to equal protection and freedom from unreasonable seizures.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is fully brief and was argued on February 18, 2026. The parties await a decision from the court.

Documents:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union | ACLU of Minnesota | Covington & Burling LLP | Greene Espel PLLP | Robins Kaplan LLP

Contact: Kate Huddleston | khuddleston@aclu.org

Press:

Hilton v. Noem

Posted on by

Hilton et al. v. Noem et al., No. 2:26‑cv‑00092 (D. Me., filed Feb. 23, 2026)

Two residents from Maine brought a class action against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement on behalf of similarly situated individuals in the District Court of Maine on February 23, 2026, contending violations of their First Amendment rights. They alleged that while they were engaged in political activity, including protesting during the federal government’s immigration crack down, their faces were scanned, and their personal data was collected by federal agents. They allege that they were told by government agents that they were placed on a government watch list. Plaintiffs allege that they are being targeted by immigration agents despite engaging in protected and lawful protest activity.

Plaintiffs ask that any data collected or maintained about the class members pertaining to their protest activities be expunged. Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order asks that defendants cease unlawful collection, maintenance, and dissemination of their data as well as from threatening, harassing, and retaliating against them for engaging their First Amendment protected activity.

The hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order is set for March 16, 2026.

Documents

Counsel: Drummond Woodson | Protect Democracy Project | Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP

Contact:  Melissa Hewey | mheewey@dwmlaw.com

Press:

Aceituno v. DHS

Posted on by

Aceituno et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 3:26‑cv‑00146 (W.D.N.C., filed Feb. 24, 2026)

On February 24, 2026, five Latino North Carolina residents filed a class action challenging warrantless immigration arrests carried out across North Carolina by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol. The complaint alleges that armed and masked federal agents conducted indiscriminate arrests in the Western District of North Carolina without warrants or lawful justification.

The named plaintiffs contend that each of them was arrested without a warrant and without the individualized probable cause required under federal law. They argue that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits a warrantless immigration arrest only when an officer has “reason to believe” that a person is removable and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that DHS’s warrantless arrest policies and practices are unlawful and seeks a permanent injunction barring the agencies from conducting such arrests absent individualized probable cause.

Documents

Counsel: ACLU of North Carolina | ACLU | Democracy Forward | Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ)

Contact:  Kristi Graunke | kgraunke@acluofnc.org

Press: