I am a patriot. I have always felt it a privilege to be American and very proud of what we represent to the world. Times have changed, and something strickingly ugly has happened to us. The Renee Good, Keith Porter and Alex Pretti homicides are the last straw. If our President will not step in to stop this, the state(s) must. Minnesota’s ability to halt federal immigration enforcement is constrained by federal supremacy, but it is not null. A state cannot nullify or physically obstruct federal law enforcement acting within lawful federal authority, because immigration enforcement is a core federal power and the Supremacy Clause preempts contrary state action (U.S. Const., art. VI; Arizona v. United States, 2012). The practical and legally durable approach is to distinguish between lawful federal immigration enforcement and allegedly unlawful operational conduct, including unconstitutional crowd control, unreasonable seizures, excessive force, and agency action that exceeds statutory or constitutional limits. Within that framing, Minnesota and its political subdivisions can pursue aggressive, legally cognizable remedies that combine federal court equitable relief, state sovereign measures that deny logistical support and eliminate state entanglement, evidence preservation and independent investigations for lethal force incidents, and damages pathways structured around the Federal Tort Claims Act and carefully pleaded individual capacity claims.
A decisive early step is to build the record and procedural posture for emergency relief. Minnesota’s Attorney General and major cities have already placed this template into the federal docket by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against what they characterize as an unprecedented surge operation, and by pleading constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act theories (State of Minnesota v. Noem, Complaint, 2026; Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 2026a). Contemporary reporting describes civilian deaths during the surge, including Alex Pretti on January 24, 2026, and notes that a federal judge ordered preservation of evidence connected to that incident (CBS Minnesota, 2026; The Guardian, 2026). Reporting also documents a prior death earlier in the month and recurring force allegations tied to the surge environment (The Marshall Project, 2026). These allegations and procedural developments are central to remedy selection, because courts are materially more willing to restrain specific unconstitutional tactics than to enjoin immigration enforcement as a category.
A primary remedy is immediate federal court equitable relief. Minnesota’s fastest lawful braking mechanism is a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction focused on unlawful conduct rather than federal authority in the abstract (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201–2202). Minnesota can seek a declaratory judgment that discrete federal practices violate the Constitution or exceed statutory authority, coupled with injunctive relief that prohibits specified behaviors, mandates training and supervision changes, and compels evidence retention and production schedules (State of Minnesota v. Noem, Complaint, 2026). Evidence control is not merely ancillary. In lethal force disputes, preservation orders can be the most attainable short-term relief and can materially influence later liability outcomes. Reporting indicates a preservation order in the Pretti matter, and allegations of obstruction in gaining access to the scene, which underscores why Minnesota should continue to press targeted preservation and access relief for body-worn camera footage, dispatch logs, chain of custody documentation, and third-party video sources (CBS Minnesota, 2026).
On the merits, Minnesota can plead multiple constitutional theories that are cognizable in equity even when actions for damages against federal actors are limited. First Amendment claims can be framed as retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, and as a chilling regime when federal agents are alleged to use force against peaceful expressive activity (Hartman v. Moore, 2006; Nieves v. Bartlett, 2019). Fourth Amendment claims can be framed as unreasonable seizures and excessive force. Those claims support injunctive relief to change practices governing stops, detentions, and use of force, particularly where plaintiffs can show a pattern, policy, or command structure rather than a one-off incident (Graham v. Connor, 1989; Tennessee v. Garner, 1985). Fifth Amendment due process framing can supplement where conduct is alleged to be arbitrary or conscience-shocking in a civil enforcement setting (County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 1998). In each lane, the remedy posture should be calibrated to what courts will enjoin. The goal is not a sweeping ban on federal presence, but enforceable constraints and oversight mechanisms that prevent unconstitutional practices and preserve evidence.
Statutorily, the Administrative Procedure Act remains a central lever when the dispute can be characterized as unlawful agency action, ultra vires deployment, or a final agency policy that is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to constitutional right, or adopted without required procedure (5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706). Even where the government frames the operation as discretionary, plaintiffs can target categorical rules and structured practices that resemble policy rather than case-by-case discretion, including deployment criteria, operational directives, and deviations from articulated enforcement protocols (State of Minnesota v. Noem, Complaint, 2026; Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 2026a). The APA posture also aligns with remedy realism. Courts often resist ordering how to enforce immigration law, but will restrain agency actions that lack lawful procedure, exceed statutory authority, or violate constitutional limits.
Separately, Minnesota’s structural state power is strongest in disentanglement. The anti-commandeering doctrine bars the federal government from compelling states or localities to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs (Printz v. United States, 1997; Murphy v. NCAA, 2018). This doctrine does not permit obstruction, but it does permit Minnesota to prohibit state and local employees from participating in certain federal immigration activities, such as honoring civil detainers absent judicial warrants, providing nonpublic data access beyond what federal law requires, and using state resources for federal tasking. Operationally, Minnesota can reinforce disentanglement through statewide policies governing state facilities and state-controlled information systems. The objective is to ensure that federal operations must stand on federal resources and federal legal authority alone, while Minnesota maintains compliance with any narrow federal preemption requirements and avoids discrimination against federal officers as such.
For redress of deaths and serious injuries, Minnesota’s investigative and prosecutorial tools matter, but they are bounded by Supremacy Clause immunity principles. Homicide and assault are state crimes, and Minnesota agencies can investigate shootings within Minnesota’s territory. However, federal officers may assert a Supremacy Clause-related immunity against state prosecution for actions taken within the scope of federal duties and authorized by federal law (In re Neagle, 1890). That doctrine is not absolute. If facts indicate actions outside lawful authority, or actions that no reasonable officer could regard as necessary and proper to execute federal duties, state prosecution becomes more plausible. Even where prosecution is foreclosed or removed, robust state investigation is still consequential. It establishes an independent factual record, constrains narratives, supports federal civil remedies, and can trigger institutional accountability mechanisms. In this context, contemporaneous reporting about contested accounts and video evidence underscores the importance of independent scene processing where possible, preservation of third-party footage, coordinated witness interviewing, and transparent public reporting (CBS Minnesota, 2026; The Guardian, 2026).
For damages, Minnesota must separate who can sue and under what theory. Wrongful death damages generally belong to estates and statutory beneficiaries under state law, but the state can support and, in some contexts, pursue recovery for sovereign and proprietary harms. The principal damages route for torts committed by federal employees is the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity for certain torts and applies the law of the place where the act occurred (28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680). The FTCA law enforcement proviso permits claims for specified intentional torts, including assault and battery, when committed by investigative or law enforcement officers (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)). Lethal force cases frequently litigate as operational conduct rather than protected policy discretion, though the United States regularly pleads discretionary function defenses and other exceptions (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)). Plaintiffs must also satisfy the FTCA’s administrative presentment, exhaustion, and limitations requirements, which makes early evidence preservation and record building essential.
If plaintiffs sue individual officers under state tort theories, the Westfall Act frequently triggers substitution of the United States as the defendant for acts within scope, routing the matter back into FTCA exclusivity (28 U.S.C. § 2679). That substitution fight can be dispositive, and it makes careful pleading and factual support crucial, including any evidence that conduct was outside the scope of employment or otherwise not in furtherance of federal duties. Constitutional damages claims against federal officers under Bivens remain theoretically available for some Fourth Amendment paradigms, but the Supreme Court has sharply limited extensions into new contexts, particularly those touching immigration and national security adjacent environments (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 1971; Hernández v. Mesa, 2020; Egbert v. Boule, 2022). As a result, victims’ counsel should treat Bivens as a high-risk vehicle and pair any constitutional damages strategy with FTCA claims and equitable relief that does not depend on implying a new damages remedy.
The phrase “stop operations in their tracks” should be operationalized into legally enforceable outcomes: a court-ordered prohibition on unconstitutional suppression of protest, restrictions on unreasonable stops and seizures, strict evidence preservation and production directives for lethal force incidents, and APA-compliant justification and process for any mass surge policy. Minnesota’s existing litigation posture already seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and frames the surge as extraordinary, which positions the state to pursue precisely this kind of targeted judicial control rather than an unattainable blanket prohibition (State of Minnesota v. Noem, Complaint, 2026; Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 2026a). When paired with disciplined state non-cooperation grounded in anti-commandeering doctrine and meticulous state-level investigation of lethal force incidents, Minnesota can constrain the operational environment, preserve accountability evidence, and position victims’ families for meaningful damages recovery.
In short, the strongest legal tools are not physical resistance or nullification. They are rapid federal court equitable relief, disciplined state disentanglement, evidence-centered litigation, and damages architectures that convert unlawful force into enforceable liability under the FTCA and related doctrines, while recognizing the Supreme Court’s narrowing of implied constitutional damages remedies.
Bibliography
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012).
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- CBS Minnesota. (2026, January 25). Judge grants restraining order against DHS after Border Patrol kills Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998).
- Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022).
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).
- Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (2020).
- In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).
- Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. (2026a, January 12). Attorney General Ellison and cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul sue to halt ICE surge into Minnesota.
- Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019).
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
- State of Minnesota v. Noem, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 0:26-cv-00190 (D. Minn. filed 2026, January 12).
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
- The Guardian. (2026, January 24). Report on the killing of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis during federal agent activity.
- The Marshall Project. (2026, January 7). Report on use of force allegations connected to immigration enforcement activity in Minneapolis.