ICE Agents Get Stunning New Order From Top Brass

Federal immigration agents just won sweeping new authority to arrest, detain, and pepper-spray protesters who stand between them and their targets.

Story Snapshot

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned restrictions on ICE agents’ enforcement tactics against protesters in Minneapolis on January 27, 2026
The ruling reversed a lower court order that protected protesters from arrests, detention, and pepper spray without probable cause
The decision followed a shooting death of a U.S. citizen and the detention of a five-year-old child during ICE operations
Attorney General Pam Bondi called the victory essential to preventing liberal judges from handcuffing law enforcement
Minneapolis deployed approximately 3,000 ICE agents in Operation Metro Surge targeting the sanctuary city

When Federal Authority Collides With Constitutional Rights

The 8th Circuit’s three-judge panel delivered a decisive blow to protesters documenting ICE enforcement operations in Minneapolis. The court granted a full stay of U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez’s preliminary injunction, which had temporarily restrained federal agents from using aggressive tactics against observers and demonstrators. The appellate judges examined video evidence showing what they described as conduct ranging from peaceful to disruptive, justifying varied federal responses. This judicial reversal hands ICE agents operational latitude they previously lacked when protesters positioned themselves between officers and enforcement targets.

The Lethal Incident That Sparked Judicial Intervention

ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, on January 7 during an enforcement operation. The officer faced neither suspension nor criminal charges. This fatal shooting intensified community opposition and led six protesters to file suit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, claiming First and Fourth Amendment violations during Operation Metro Surge activities. Judge Menendez initially sided with the protesters, finding they would likely prevail on constitutional claims. The preliminary injunction she issued on January 16 prohibited agents from arresting, detaining, or pepper-spraying protesters without probable cause.

A Five-Year-Old Child Becomes Political Lightning Rod

Liam Conejo Ramos was five years old when ICE agents detained him on January 23. Thousands of Minnesotans braved subzero temperatures to protest his detention during an enforcement operation. Vice President JD Vance defended the agents, claiming they protected the child after his father fled. Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro rejected this explanation entirely, calling Homeland Security authorities sick liars and reporting difficulty even locating the detained child. Former Vice President Kamala Harris characterized the detention as using a baby as bait. The incident crystallized opposing views about appropriate boundaries for immigration enforcement.

Sanctuary City Versus Federal Power

Minneapolis operates as a sanctuary city where local police refuse cooperation with federal immigration sweeps. The Trump administration targeted this Democratic stronghold with Operation Metro Surge, deploying thousands of agents to conduct enforcement operations. Mayor Jacob Frey characterized the federal presence as an occupation rather than law enforcement. Minnesota state government sought a temporary restraining order to halt the sweeps statewide. This clash between municipal sanctuary policies and federal enforcement priorities represents a fundamental disagreement about immigration authority and local autonomy that courts will continue adjudicating long after this specific ruling.

Constitutional Questions Remain Unresolved

The appeals court decision removes immediate restrictions but leaves deeper constitutional questions unanswered. Judge Menendez found protesters likely to succeed on First and Fourth Amendment claims, suggesting fundamental rights violations occurred during enforcement operations. The 8th Circuit disagreed about whether temporary restrictions were warranted while litigation proceeds, but the underlying merits remain undecided. The ACLU of Minnesota called the ruling incredibly disappointing and pledged continued protection of assembly rights. Executive Director Deepinder Mayell emphasized that Minnesotans retain constitutional rights to safely assemble and protest without fear of federal harm.

Federal Enforcement Without Judicial Restraint

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the appeals court victory as preventing liberal judges from handcuffing federal law enforcement. The ruling reflects judicial deference to executive branch authority over immigration enforcement operations, even when constitutional objections exist. ICE agents now operate without previous restraints on force, detention, and arrest tactics when confronting protesters. Civil rights advocates worry this creates conditions for federal agents to act with impunity against civilians documenting enforcement activities. The balance between effective law enforcement and constitutional protections remains contested terrain where reasonable people applying American principles reach starkly different conclusions about appropriate limits on government power.

UN Rights Chief Volker Turk entered the controversy by calling on U.S. authorities to end dehumanizing portrayal and harmful treatment of migrants and refugees. International criticism adds another dimension to domestic debates about immigration enforcement methods. The Trump administration shows no inclination to modify its approach based on either judicial concerns or international commentary. The detention of at least four children in the Minneapolis school district alone demonstrates the scope and intensity of ongoing operations. Economic boycott calls circulated on social media as community resistance continues despite the legal setback protesters suffered in the 8th Circuit.