The Trump administration has filed an appeal against a federal judge’s ruling that restricts certain tactics used by U.S. immigration agents during enforcement operations in Minneapolis, escalating tensions surrounding immigration enforcement and civil rights protections. The appeal was submitted Saturday by the Department of Justice, challenging an order issued a day earlier that limits how federal officers can interact with protesters and observers.
The ruling, handed down by a federal judge on Friday, bars immigration agents from arresting, detaining, or using crowd-control measures such as tear gas or pepper spray against individuals who are peacefully protesting or observing immigration enforcement activities. The court order also protects bystanders who are recording or monitoring federal operations, unless officers have reasonable suspicion that those individuals are interfering with law enforcement or committing a crime.
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed on December 17 against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of six protesters and legal observers who argued that their constitutional rights were violated during immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis. The case gained heightened attention after a tragic incident in which an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman, an event that sparked widespread protests across the city.
In response to the unrest, the Trump administration deployed thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis area as part of a broader effort to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants. This large-scale deployment has fueled public concern and intensified protests, particularly after the fatal shooting, which became a focal point for criticism of ICE tactics and federal immigration policies.
The appealed order explicitly limits federal officers’ authority to detain peaceful demonstrators and restricts the use of chemical agents or other crowd-control munitions against nonviolent protesters and observers. The administration argues that the restrictions hinder federal agents’ ability to carry out their duties effectively, while civil rights advocates say the ruling is necessary to protect constitutional freedoms.
As the appeal moves forward, the case is expected to remain a significant flashpoint in the national debate over immigration enforcement, public protest rights, and the limits of federal authority during civil demonstrations.


Japan Election 2026: Sanae Takaichi Poised for Landslide Win Despite Record Snowfall
TrumpRx.gov Highlights GLP-1 Drug Discounts but Offers Limited Savings for Most Americans
Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies
Iran–U.S. Nuclear Talks in Oman Face Major Hurdles Amid Rising Regional Tensions
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House
U.S. to Begin Paying UN Dues as Financial Crisis Spurs Push for Reforms
U.S. Condemns South Africa’s Expulsion of Israeli Diplomat Amid Rising Diplomatic Tensions
CK Hutchison Unit Launches Arbitration Against Panama Over Port Concessions Ruling
China Warns US Arms Sales to Taiwan Could Disrupt Trump’s Planned Visit
Norway Opens Corruption Probe Into Former PM and Nobel Committee Chair Thorbjoern Jagland Over Epstein Links
Panama Supreme Court Voids Hong Kong Firm’s Panama Canal Port Contracts Over Constitutional Violations
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell
New York Legalizes Medical Aid in Dying for Terminally Ill Patients
California Sues Trump Administration Over Federal Authority on Sable Offshore Pipelines
U.S. Lawmakers to Review Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein DOJ Files Starting Monday
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case 



