Appeals court declines to reimpose restrictions on agents at Minnesota protests

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Mon Jan 26, 2026, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Hill

01/26/26 6:35 PM ET


The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the Trump administration, ruling that limits imposed by a judge earlier this month were too broad and vague. “A wrong call could end in contempt, yet there is little in the order that constrains the district court’s power to impose it,” the panel wrote in its unsigned opinion.

The ruling lasts until the 8th Circuit resolves the administration’s appeal in normal course, which will be expedited.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, an appointee of former President Biden, had blocked federal personnel responding to protests in Minnesota from retaliating against peaceful demonstrators or using pepper spray and “similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools” against them.

She issued the ruling after a group of residents sued on Dec. 17, claiming that officers were violating the First Amendment at protests that erupted across the Twin Cities as federal resources arrived.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5707439-trump-administration-wins-appeal/

---

Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.113.0_2.pdf

REFERENCES

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143600074
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143602739
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143600487

[rzemanfl]

1. Shit. n/t

[FBaggins]

2. The link labeled as the order appears to actually be to ACLU's most recent pleading

Not your error... the article from The Hill appears to do the same.

I think this is it:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26508957-tincherstayca8012626/?fbclid=IwY2xjawPk6PdleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFYTU9aQldSUzlJbzdFYWxtc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtfmG65zEYimJtynNn3XuIHecS-rpuyjuTa3cq5UjoJ5AYihfvjgX35mgp0b_aem_meHD2b-AMh1cjBCaPJzgvQ

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Thanks - they linked to the wrong thing but I found it on Court Listener

[bluestarone]

3. Expidited equals

just after November, no doubt! ( wouldn't surprise me)

[iemanja]

5. So the 4th Amendment is null and void

Last edited Mon Jan 26, 2026, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

According to this court. The First too.

[pat_k]

6. WTF is wrong with these people? Menendez's order was simply an order to OBEY THE LAW.

Arresting, pepper spraying, shooting rubber bullets at persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity is a violation of their civil rights.

And violations of civil rights "under color of law" are prosecutable crimes.

The order was disturbing to me because it was akin to issuing a TRO against premediated murder or assault and battery. Why the hell should you need injunction against actions that are ALREADY CRIMES.

And now, declaring the order "too vague" is BEYOND INSANE. With this decision, the appeals court is saying: "We declare that ICE be given free reign to violate civil rights under color of law." Miller's declaration of a post-law America is being made manifest.

We are in an unprecedented time in which crystal clear laws are somehow rendered "debatable," and "unclear," and NO ONE SEEMS TO TAKE NOTE OF IT.

There is NOTHING vague about the Honorable Kate Menendez's order:

3. Covered Federal Agents are hereby enjoined from:

a. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge.

b. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.

c. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.

d. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents, or otherwise violating 18 U.S.C.§ 111. The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.

[FBaggins]

7. And that's exactly what the problem was

Courts don't have jurisdiction to say "don't break the law" as an advisory opinion. They can rule something illegal when the victim sues for the violation of rights... but you can't go to the court ahead of time and say "I think they're going to violate my rights... tell them not to".

Ironically - if you read the partial dissent, it was the one part of the ruling that he thought did not say "obey the law" that would pass muster:

"That directive is not an improperly vague “obey the law” injunction andshould not be stayed pending appeal"

[pat_k]

8. Thanks for the clarification. It is still infuriating that this is read as a "win" for the felon in chief.