Category Archives: Minnesota

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:

Villalobos et al. v. United States

Posted on by

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →

Villalobos et al. v. United States, No. 0:21-cv-02233 (D. Minn., filed Oct. 11, 2021)

Plaintiff Kerlin Sanchez Villalobos and her younger sister are suing the United States for the severe abuse and mistreatment they suffered while they were held in immigration custody. In June 2019, they entered the United States seeking safety from violence and persecution in Honduras, and were arrested by CBP agents. At the time, Kerlin was sixteen and her sister was fourteen. After their arrest, Kerlin and her sister were taken to a CBP detention facility in Clint, Texas and held there for nine days, after which they were forcibly separated and transferred to different group homes operated by Southwest Key Programs, Inc.

At the facility in Clint, Texas, CBP officers and government contractors mistreated Plaintiffs in a variety of ways, including physically assaulting them, depriving them of adequate food and water, denying them access to necessary medical care and medication, forcing them to watch the mistreatment of other children, and forcing them to care for younger children. Officers forced the girls to lift their shirts to be searched in a non-private setting, and threw away medicine one of the sisters brought with her to treat a recent injury. According to the siblings, officers ordered them to control the younger children who were crying because they were separated from their families. One of the sisters was injured by an officer who kicked her repeatedly. Additionally, the Clint facility was reported to have subpar sanitation for the number of children held there, and an MSNBC video from 2019 revealed children caged like animals. According to an ABC news report, staff had no training on caring for children.

In spite of initially assuring the sisters they would not be separated, officers traumatically separated the sisters without explanation and transported them to separate group homes. Despite prior reports of abuse at the Texas group homes where the sisters were held, the U.S. government has continued to place children there. In total, Kerlin spent twenty days in detention, and her sister spent twenty-nine days. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for negligence, negligent undertaking, battery, and assault under Texas law via the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in October 2021 and the United States answered in January 2022. After engaging in discovery, the parties reached a settlement, which was reviewed and approved by the court with regards to the minor plaintiff. The case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal by the parties.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Continue reading →