Judge Blocks ICE Arrests Near Protests

What the Order Actually Says

The federal judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order that stops certain federal agents from arresting or using crowd control tools against people who are peacefully observing immigration enforcement operations unless there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. The order specifically bars retaliatory arrests, use of pepper spray or similar nonlethal munitions, and stopping vehicles simply because they are safely following agents at a distance. In short the court drew a line between lawful protest and criminal conduct and said agents may not act on mere presence alone.

Who Brought the Case and Why

Six private plaintiffs filed the suit against the Department of Homeland Security and other federal officials, arguing that ICE tactics were chilling lawful protest and endangering observers. At the same time the State of Minnesota sued DHS in a separate action to try to limit federal immigration raids. The judge granted the temporary order in the private suit but has not yet issued a similar emergency order in the state case, asking both parties for more briefing before deciding the wider dispute.

BREAKING: A federal judge in Minnesota has ordered restrictions on ICE's tactics against protesters who aren't suspected of committing crimes — including stopping cars that aren't obstructing them. https://t.co/FroWD9hSUJ pic.twitter.com/7MWhntoM8X

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 17, 2026

What This Means on the Ground

About 3,000 federal agents are reported to be in Minnesota for immigration enforcement operations. Under the judge’s order agents must be careful not to treat peaceful observers as suspects. That could limit some enforcement tactics in crowded or politically charged settings and make it harder to act quickly when crowds are present. Law enforcement still keeps the power to act when there is clear criminal behavior or when an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop someone.

The Legal Fight Is Not Over

The TRO is temporary and limited to the private plaintiffs’ case. The state lawsuit against DHS remains pending and the judge has asked for more arguments from both sides. Expect more hearings and possible appeals. If this dispute goes higher it could shape how federal agents conduct immigration work where protests and public observers are nearby.

WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.

JIMMY

Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com.