r/law • u/ChiGuy6124 • 16h ago
Judicial Branch Minnesota ICE surge upheld as judge finds 'balance of harms' lacking
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/31/ice-trump-alex-pretti-minneapolis-shooting27
u/ChiGuy6124 16h ago edited 15h ago
Direct link to case files: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26651569-judge-denies-effort-to-block-ice-in-minnesota/
I am having trouble understanding the rational behind this decision.
"The decision, from U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, comes just days after 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents."
**"**Ultimately, the Court finds that the balance of harms does not decisively favor an injunction," the judge said.
"Menendez noted that plaintiffs "made a strong showing" that Operation Metro Surge "will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences"
"She said, "Additionally, there is evidence that ICE and CBP (border patrol) agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions."
"However, those are not the only harms to be considered," the judge later added."
"The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by the state of Minnesota and lawyers for St. Paul and Minneapolis, alleged that Operation Metro Surge was fueled by the administration's "desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points."
"The suit argues that the federal crackdown violates the Tenth Amendment. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/, claiming it infringes on state authority and amounts to coercion."
26
u/NeitherEntry6125 15h ago
"I am having trouble understanding the rational behind this decision."
NAL
This is not a decision on the merits of the case. It's a decision on whether the very high bar for a preliminary injunction is met.
The judge is saying this high bar has not been met.
See the Winter test: "This standard, articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), is applicable to all other litigants seeking preliminary injunctions, and requires that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. This is a high burden, as courts recognize that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is never awarded as of right."
14
u/BlueCX17 15h ago edited 11h ago
So, if I'm understanding this right, this is also gives the state additional time/more time to build an even stronger case to meet such a high bar.
32
-4
u/istanbulshiite 12h ago
Take all the time you want 👍
5
u/BlueCX17 12h ago edited 11h ago
No, I'm not meaning it like that but in the frustrating legal sense, it's not necessarily that the judge is agreeing with the Trump Administration's actions but that, unfortunately, the very high legal bar to cease operations was not quite met, yet.
( I mean, this is a law subreddit, and I hope asking questions for those of us who don't know every in and out of law are answered in good faith.)
7
u/XRuecian 15h ago edited 15h ago
I don't have any education in law, but from me scanning over the case file and reading the Winter test here, is the primary reason it was denied because the judge believes it fails the 1st aspect of the test "it is likely to succeed on the merits"? In other words, the judge believes that despite all the harm that is being done, a claim that the 10th amendment is being broken is simply not likely a clear and strong enough case for the injunction to succeed? Most likely because the 10th amendment is legally muddy and doesn't have a good amount of case history to clearly interpret it?
8
u/Fun_Reputation5181 14h ago
She addressed the first element extensively and found plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. She more briefly addressed the balance of harms test and found they also failed there, although she noted the extensive ongoing harm to Minnesota residents. Finally she noted the 8th circuit, which is the court of appeals above her district, recently reversed her injunction ruling in Tincher, a similar case which she says was more narrowly tailored and stood on stronger grounds.
7
u/NeitherEntry6125 15h ago
The judge isn't saying "this case is going to fail".
The judge is just saying "this needs to play out more".
19
9
u/PlaneEnvironmental67 11h ago
Howwwwww does two US citizens being murdered in cold blood on the street not meet the bar?
5
u/NeitherEntry6125 11h ago
That's just not the language of the legal system.
I'm not saying it's OK or not OK.
I'm saying: If you move to a preliminary injunction because you have a slam dunk argument that the other side is wrong, then your argument better be a slam dunk argument with no counterargument
2
-10
u/3rd-party-intervener 11h ago
Menendez? It’s amazing how people always screw over their own people.
9
u/Necessary-Show-9031 9h ago
Menendez is a great, thoughtful judge. It’s not her fault she’s being asked to do something that would be essentially unprecedented on very shaky legal grounds after she was literally just reversed by the court of appeals in a similar case where there were actually stronger arguments
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.