RAW CLIP — Tincher v. Noem — Order Restricting ICE Tactics Against Protesters — fetched 2026-06-07
Source PDF fetched from CourtListener and text-extracted with pdftotext (WebFetch could not decode the compressed PDF stream directly; the 83-page binary was saved and extracted locally). Text below is verbatim from the order.
- Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.85.0.pdf
Case: Tincher v. Noem, Case No. 0:25-cv-4669 (KMM/DTS), ECF No. 85 (83-page Order). U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Judge Katherine Menendez. Filed January 16, 2026.
CAPTION (verbatim)
Susan Tincher, John Biestman, Janet Lee, Lucia Webb, Abdikadir Noor, and Alan Crenshaw, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE); Marcos Charles, Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement And Removal Operations (ERO), ICE; David Easterwood, Acting Field Office Director, ERO, ICE Saint Paul Field Office; John A. Condon, Acting Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security Investigations; the Department of Homeland Security; Unidentified Federal Agencies; and Unidentified Federal Agents; in their official capacities, Defendants.
OPENING (verbatim)
In early December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Metro Surge, an ongoing enforcement effort that has led to an unprecedented increase in federal law enforcement presence to enforce immigration laws in Minnesota. In this case, six named Plaintiffs who have protested and observed these enforcement activities claim that their First and Fourth Amendment rights have been violated and request both declaratory and injunctive relief. … they also seek to represent a class of persons who record, observe, and protest the immigration enforcement officers and their efforts.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 16.) For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY (verbatim, selected)
Plaintiffs allege that, despite remaining law abiding when engaging in those protected activities, Defendants subjected them to the use of chemical irritants, intimidation, including by pointing firearms at them, detention, and arrest, in violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on December 17, 2025 … They also seek to represent a proposed class, which they define as: “All persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against the DHS immigration operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.” (Id. ¶ 179 (“Proposed Class”).) The Complaint asserts five class claims: (1) “First Amendment—Free Speech, Free Press, Free Assembly”; (2) “First Amendment—Retaliation”; (3) “Fourth Amendment—Unlawful Seizure and Excessive Force”; (4) “Civil Conspiracy”; and (5) “Declaration of Rights, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.” … The Complaint also includes 14 declarations total from the named Plaintiffs and nonparties.
The next day, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 16.) … The day after that, on December 19, 2025, the Court held a status conference. The Court converted the motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for a preliminary injunction …
KEY HOLDING ON FOLLOWING (verbatim, body footnote 24)
However, the Court holds, below, that peacefully and safely following immigration officers performing their duties in public, without more, does not provide a lawful basis for an investigative traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.
And the Defendants point to no law or statute that prohibits citizens from safely following law enforcement officers performing their duties in non-emergency situations.
THE ORDER (verbatim, pp. 81–83)
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART.
- This order applies to individual Plaintiffs and to all persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest Operation Metro Surge and related operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.
- This Injunction applies to Defendants and their officers and agents operating in the District of Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement activities as part of Operation Metro Surge. It also applies to Defendants and their officers and agents responding to protests that arise in response to Operation Metro Surge. (Hereinafter “Covered Federal Agents.“) This Injunction does not apply to Defendants and their officers and agents otherwise conducting routine operations within the District of Minnesota.
- 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.
- Dissemination of this Order a. The Defendants must widely disseminate notice of this Order to all Covered Federal Agents, including providing copies in paper or electronic format. b. The Order must be distributed to all Covered Federal Agents and all Defendants within 72 hours of its issuance. c. The Order must be distributed to all newly deployed Covered Federal Agents that arrive in Minnesota to take part in Operation Metro Surge.
- This Order shall remain in effect until Operation Metro Surge concludes or the conditions change such that it is no longer necessary. If any party believes that the surge has come to an end or that the injunction is no longer necessary, they may file a motion for its termination.
- Either party may seek to modify this Order by filing a motion with the Court.
Date: January 16, 2026 s/Katherine Menendez, Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY (from secondary sources — not in this PDF)
The Eighth Circuit administratively stayed the injunction (~Jan 21, 2026), then issued a longer/indefinite stay (~Jan 26-27, 2026) in a brief per curiam decision finding the government made a “strong showing” the injunction was “unlikely to survive appellate review,” “overly broad,” and “impermissibly vague.” (Exact stay dates vary across outlets — present as a two-step sequence; verify against the appellate docket before printing a hard date.) Secondary: TIME (https://time.com/7347110/ice-minneapolis-judge-arrests/); Colorado Politics/AP (https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/01/27/appeals-court-indefinitely-halts-judges-limits-on-ice-tactics-in-minnesota/).