Yves here. The normally sober The Conversation, where academics publish layperson-friendly articles, is close to hair-on-fire mode its alarm about ICE and DHS constitutional violations. This piece both gives a high level overview and covers a key issue, of how the historical role of the Federal government in curbing civil rights abuses. Note that this was a comparatively recent development in historical terms, as the persistent terrorism by Birmingham commissioner Bull Connor and Klansmen and lack of Federal action during 1960s civil rights protests illustrates.
By Michael J. Lansing, Professor of History, Augsburg University and Yohuru Williams, Professor of History, University of St. Thomas. Originally published at The Conversation
Forcibly entering homes without a judicial warrant. Arresting journalists who reported on protests. Defying dozens of federal orders. Killing U.S. citizens for noncompliance. Asking constitutionally protected observers this chilling question: “Have you not learned?”
This is daily life in Minnesota. Operation Metro Surge, ostensibly an immigration enforcement initiative, has become something more consequential: a constitutional stress test. Can constitutional protections withstand the actions of a federal government seemingly intent on aggressively violating the rule of law?
In Minneapolis, a city still reckoning with its own grim history of policing, the federal operation raises fundamental questions about law enforcement and the limits of executive power.
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates are especially worried about ongoing violations of the First, Second, Fourth and 10th amendments, as are other observers, including historians like us.
Catalog of Violations
First Amendment concerns stem from reports that agents from ICE – described by some scholars as a paramilitary force– and the Border Patrol have deployed excessive force as well as advanced surveillance methods on suspects, observers and journalists. When enforcement activity impedes the rights to assemble, document and criticize government action, that chills those rights, and the consequences extend beyond any single demonstration. These rights are not peripheral to democracy. They are central to it.
Second Amendment issues erupted following the fatal shooting of a legally armed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Highly placed administration officials claimed Americans could not bring firearms to protests, despite a long-standing interpretation that in most states, including Minnesota, a person who was legally permitted to carry a firearm could bring it to such events. The assertion was in fact contrary to the Trump administration’s support for gun rights.
Thanks to the videos flooding social media, Fourth Amendment concerns are the most familiar. Allegations include entering homes without warrants, stopping, intimidating and seizing legal observers, and detaining suspects by virtue of their appearance or accent. Those are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, which were adopted to prevent the exercise of arbitrary government power.
Finally, the 10th Amendment lies at the heart of Minnesota’s legal cases against the federal government.
One lawsuit contests the federal government’s refusal to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to investigate the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Another challenges efforts to pressure local governments into assisting federal immigration enforcement. These disputes implicate federalism itself – the constitutional division of authority between states and the federal government that is the foundation of the American system.
The massive and rapid accumulation of these alleged constitutional violations – now working their way through the courts – in a single geographic locale is striking. So are the mass resignations from the state’s U.S. attorney’s office, which is responsible for representing the federal government in these cases.
And so is the deeper historical context.
A Retreat from Federal Constitutional Oversight
Starting in 1994, federal intervention became a powerful corrective whenever local police violated constitutional rights.
From Newark to New Orleans, federal oversight was not always welcomed, but it was frequently necessary to enforce equal protection and due process.
Federal oversight has been essential in enforcing civil rights when municipalities would not. Active monitoring of policing in those cities kept officers and administrators accountable and encouraged officers to follow constitutional standards. At its core, what experts call “constitutional policing” requires that government’s use of authority to ensure order be justified, limited and subject to oversight.
In that vein, after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice report on policing in Minneapolis identified questionable patterns and practices. Those problems included the “unreasonable” use of deadly force, racial profiling and retaliation against journalists. The Department of Justice’s proposed consent decree – grounded in constitutional policing – offered a way forward.
But in May 2025, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s appointee Pam Bondi, withdrew the recommended agreement.
Seven months later, Operation Metro Surge deployed thousands of federal agents to Minnesota with a markedly different enforcement philosophy.
Indeed, the recent expansion of federal enforcement authority in Minnesota followed a retreat from federal constitutional oversight.
Taking the Handcuffs Off
A presidential executive order, signed by Trump in late April 2025 and titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” pledged to remove what were described as “handcuffs” on police.
Soon thereafter, the administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid immigration protests.
Though a federal judge later rejected the legal rationale for that deployment, in August 2025, the president sent National Guard forces to Washington, D.C., purportedly to reduce crime. In September 2025, Trump described American cities as potential “training grounds” for the military to confront what he called the “enemy from within.”
Each episode reflects an increasingly expansive view of executive branch authority.
Whether Operation Metro Surge ultimately withstands judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. Numerous lawsuits continue to wind their way through the courts.
But the broader question is already clear: When, in the name of security, the executive branch directly challenges so many Bill of Rights protections at once, how much strain can the American legal system absorb? Will basic constitutional rights survive this moment?
What is unfolding in Minnesota is not simply a local enforcement story. It is a test of whether the Constitution as we know it will survive.
31 comments
Comments are closed.
Thanks for this post. It is a good response to those brushing aside as nothing to see, nothing to worry about Constitutional questions arising in Minneapolis. Yes, there is something to see and worry about here.
This is crucial, and my answer is no, it will not survive. When I speak to historians I know, as well as keen, insightful colleagues, not one give me an example when something like this has been reversed.
This is beyond rhetoric from the Administration to provoke angst and news cycles. We are rapidly sliding into Fascism and not meaningful institution is standing up to try and stop it. Not SCOTUS, not our business oligarchs who get richer by the day, not Congress. A few No Kings rallies and the bravery of the citizens of Minneapolis will not stop amoral, zealots with guns.
When historians eventually write up this period in US history, I think it will go something like this:
Background
The long period of polarisation (see previous chapter) culminated in the second election of Donald Trump. By this point the republican party was sufficiently polarised that the president could depend on its slim majorities in the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court to follow his lead.
Control of the administratvie state
In the spring of 2025 Trump’s ally Elon Musk was appointed leader of DOGE, a new unit not regulated in law or constitution. Musk wielded a mandate of cost cutting to give illegal orders and fire anyone that objected, he also illegally destroyed agencies. Through these measures Trump gained control over the administrative state, though the weaknesses this caused the state would later have profound consequences (see next chapter, The crisis of 2030).
Establishment of a presidential para-military
Through massive expansion and hiring from white nationalist circles, the already existing agency ICE was transformed into an outright presidential para-military. The crack-down in several oppositional “blue” cities (a refence to party colours) established ICE as a force above the law. Vice president Vance declared ICE immune to prosecution.
Using ICE to control elections
In the midterm elections of 2026, the president rolled out ICE against voters in oppositional areas.
… I’ll stop there because nothing is certain. If Trump drops dead before then, I am not sure Vance can keep the gang together. Maybe the loss becomes to big to rig. Also events has a tendency to upset most plans. If they get away with controlling elecctions I think the next step is control over the military and the security state, which they notably do not have today.
The constitution ‘as we know it’ is one that cannot effectively safeguard liberties against power. See: Jim Crow, the 1920s red scare, the 50s red and lavendar scares, Japanese internment, COINTELPRO, Kent State, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, NSA mass warrantless suveillance, no fly lists, Shelby v Holder.
These episodes show a recurring structural condition of the US constitution. The relevant question may be whether we are finally approaching a historical conjuncture in which this pattern might finally be reversed, or whether this episode merely clarifies the limits that have always existed for some Americans (and merely applies to more of them).
Indeed. And no consequences for the authorities who ordered it for anything on your list.
I’ve been waiting for a rollback of the AUMF and Patriot Act for over 20 years now – not going to happen now if it hasn’t already, and there has been ample opportunity for both parties to roll it back had they wanted to.
Many warned at the time that the violence authorized by the AUMF and Patriot Act would eventually be used against US citizens.
Cassandra was correct once again.
Elevators across corporate Canada had the item (several days old): “Human Rights Watch warns US becoming an authoritarian state”.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/04/meeting-trumps-challenge-to-human-rights
When the elevators which typically depict pablumized, safe to digest, politically neutral news….
The little good news that results from the Federal invasion of Minnesota is the example its residents have demonstrated. Some with their lives. The community that survives this harsh climate is historically very tight knit, and will “show up” when needed.
The result of the invaders’ brutal treatment of our fellow residents and the murder of two protestors, the resistance just keeps growing.
Fourteen Federal prosecutors have resigned, and recent opposition caucuses have grown by a factor of 20 in solidly conservative districts.
Also, we have very competent legal allies who are keeping up pressure on the Feds for their illegal behavior in this invasion.
The University of St. Thomas Law School is holding a symposium on these issues next week:
The Surge of ICE in the Twin Cities: Law Professors on the Issues
https://uofstthomasmn.my.salesforce-sites.com/summit__SummitEventsRegister?instanceID=a0zVs000006hXN3IAM&_gl=1*13wfing*_gcl_au*NzA4NzA5NTIuMTc2NTY1MDMwOA..*_ga*ODQ3NDU5MDA5LjE3NjI4MDcwNzI.*_ga_B7VNHGCX7P*czE3NzAyOTY1MzYkbzE2JGcwJHQxNzcwMjk2NTM2JGo2MCRsMCRoMA..
The Biden administration broke every immigration law and our constitution to literally import 10-20M migrants, no one knows how many.
Reversing this is what the people voted for. It was always going to be messy.
I dont care about the mess, just get it done. Everyone not here legally to leave. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Have you lost your mind? Whatever personal harm you think you suffered, it does not even begin to justify the murder of Renee Good or Alex Pretti, let alone the end of the rule of law in the US. I can’t believe I have to run this clip yet again:
Wow, not used to seeing hasbara in these comments.
Dave doesn’t look or sound like an Oglala, Lakota, Cree, Seminole or Mohican name.
Illegal immigration started in 1492, that’s a lot of deportations!
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
No, but collectively ignoring it might be.
When I was an interning attorney while attending law school in the early 1990’s, it was almost a joke about winning a probable cause hearing in criminal court. After 911, the substance of the 4th A was eviscerated, and yet the American public barely cared. The “pros” and “cons” concerning the obvious overreach of the federal and state governments was debated as though that were the issue instead of the factual constitutional infractions that occurred on a daily basis. The only discernable objections stemmed from the gun owners who are best described as 2nd A rights–almost exclusively focused on the 2nd A. The justice system in America is anything but justice and was broken far before I started practicing law. When SCOTUS declared that an artificial, man-made entity–a corporation, is tantamount to a real person, then all reality is lost. The article states that aside of the 1st & 4th A violations, the crux of the legal argument rests with the 10th A. On paper the narrative may appeal to some people, but any legal beagle should note the point is specious as the 10 A only means what the SCOTUS says it means–those rights not explicitly granted to the federal government. In the Federalist Papers, the genius Madison knew exactly what he was authoring as it pertains to the 10th A, a strong federal system with over reaching powers. Today, even those over reaching powers are not enough for the American Authoritarian system. America boasts about having a written constitution, but all of our governments (fed, state, local, etc) openly defy that written document and the majority of the public still believes in following the rule of law–a kind of constant delusion. A federal judge in Minneapolis recently denied a TRO requested by the MN Attorney General even though that judge found numerous supported constitutional violations, but instead said that if she were to grant the TRO/injunction, that it would be in uncharted waters attempting to contest (clear constitutional violations) the federal government power. Perhaps the emperor truly has no clothes, but I can’t see his nakedness due to my constitutional-colored lenses.
I’m no Pollyanna, times are dark, but I do remember slavery in the US was once legal, Jim Crow was once legal, unchecked monopoly power was once legal, discrimination in job hiring was once legal, etc.
None of what we’re experiencing now will be turned around quickly, maybe not for years. It’s taken years of building (or maybe it’s dismantling) by both parties to get us to where we are now.
Over the past several days when I see what is happening in Minnesota, I am reminded of the complaints of the American colonists in the US Declaration of Independence. Good thing that several hundred agents are being pulled out of that State before you had a modern day Boston massacre.
My guess about the 700 ice-nazi’s being moved out is that it is just a sleight of hand.
It has been long enough now. Now they will send 700 out, which is really just starting the rotation schedule. You don’t need anywhere near that number for anything. After all, it isn’t like they are actually “doing anything”. This way they can pretend they are sending them away, but really they are just rotating them.
Unfortunately, there are still 2000 agents still on the ground here, when local news stations are reporting that the “normal” number of ICE/CBP agents is between 80 and 150.
Rage levels amongst the people I’ve talked to have not subsided. Things seemed to have started waning a bit a week or so after Renee Good’s murder but Pretti’s murder intensified things to levels I’ve never seen before. It still feels like we’re sitting on a powder keg here and with this many agents still present, it’s just a matter of time before something grotesque happens again. The below normal January temperatures have helped keep a lid on things (Minnesotans tend to hibernate and go all hygge in winter) but things are warming up.
I’ve been having trouble posting comments here lately (I think Skynet’s algorithm may have placed me on the “naughty” list — not complaining, just observing) so I won’t blockquote the quite salty portion from this article but if you scroll down to the paragraph that begins with “Elizabeth has shared a message with her husband, grandma and sister”, the defiant sentiment expressed is shared amongst a lot of people here, myself included.
MN needs to pass a temporary (expires 2/28) law allowing open carry of long arms. Haven’t heard of an invasion like this in TX or AZ where half the population walks around with AKs strapped to their backs.
Minnesota is an open carry state and there are no additional restrictions placed on long guns:
IANAL:
I think they miss a few assaults on rights even though they are local to MSP, literally in my neighborhood.
3rd Amendment: Feds are demanding access to restaurants and hotels.
5th Amendment- due process
6th Amendment- right to a jury trial for criminal violations such as “terrorism”
7th Amendment- right to a jury trial for civil violations such as immigration
8th Amendment- cruel and unusual punishments
9th Amendment- privacy, although this has been argued for decades or longer
14th Amendment- birthright citizenship
15th Anendment- voting rights, as they are clearly planning on attempting to prevent blue states’ from voting this year, or confiscating ballots if we get to vote, as described by Speaker Johnson.
22nd Amendment- term limits
This is nuts. Minnesota is a cold war of attrition and I think Minnesota is winning, but as Nathaniel Greene demonstrated 250 years ago is possible to lose nearly every battle in a campaign and still win the campaign.
If the Constitutional government is restored, and I think it can, there must be Amendments to ensure that this can’t happen again. I suggest an amendment that adds or removes the following rights:
– corporations, AI, and other legal fictions have no inherent rights whatsoever and must always be subordinate to the rights of people;
– money is not speech and must be regulated with regards to elections and political issues;
– the President’s power to pardon must be subject to veto by Congress
– term limits for SCOTUS and Congress (12 years each, but not cumulative, is my suggestion)
– the right to privacy
I’m open to others.
I don’t think that there’ve been any shenanigans* regarding the Third – yet – but otherwise…
*requires quartering troops** in homes, after all… ;-)
**”soldiers,” actually, which raises the question “what if they’re sailors? or Marines?”
Some hotels in MN are refusing to serve the troops. Serving food falls under this amendment too. Food and lodging falls under quartering. There’s been pushback from the administration about that refusal, with the irony being that the GOP pushed so hard to be able to refuse services to accommodate “deeply held beliefs” of the server.
IMHO, we are at a juncture when the question is whether the pretense will be maintained, even if reality and theory are highly divergent, or the ever-thinning, tattered veil will fall away, revealing only naked power.
If they’re doing this out in the open you can be sure they are doing worse behind the scenes. America is dying – faster and faster every day.
DNR
It is touching to see sudden concern regarding abuses related to the Second Amendment. It is sad that the concern only arises in very limited scenarios related only to ICE, and such abuses continue apace in other jurisdictions.
As has been said elsewhere – one has to wonder what would happen if someone – or a bunch of someones – showed up to a protest openly carrying AR15s, a la Kyle Rittenhouse some years ago…
If they showed up to an organized protest here, I don’t think anything would happen. ICE/CBP agents stay far away from those.
If they answered the call of the Constitutional Observers whistling/Signal chatting that an ICE/CBP operation was taking place near them, I’d most likely be adding another stop to my bike tours of streetside memorials. :(
Sorry, I didn’t read your message close enough (the mindset I was in from my reply to motorslug above was lingering).
If a Kyle Rittenhouse type showed up to an organized protest here and started shooting, I honestly think that the intense rage that exists here would be enough to push bystanders into Purple People Eater mode and he would be dealt with before he could reload.
I’m not a lawyer and welcome correction, but I’ve seen online posts by immigration lawyers saying that the basic problem is U.S. immigration law. Things like overstaying your visa are civil violations, so if a person is detained for that they don’t have some of the due-process rights they would have in a criminal case. Even deportation is not a criminal punishment (however disruptive it is for the people involved) so (not sure of this) it may not be a deprivation of liberty as defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Recall how Obama’s WH advisor Stuart Seldowitz harassed that NYC hot dog vendor, resulting in his being charged with criminal harassment, hate crimes, stalking, etc. I think this is relevant here, because the things he was saying fit with what team Trump is doing, revealing the thinking inside the WH.
He was:
– Calling the vendor a terrorist
– Implying he was in the country illegally
– Mocking his English skills
– Mocking and making derogatory statements about his culture, religion, nationality, language
– Asking if he raped his sister
– Implying he was being tracked, watched
– Threatening deportation, promising torture
Sound a bit like ICE now? This was incubating even under Obama, it seems?
Immigrants are not the reason you can’t find a job.
It’s the economy stupid. It’s late stage monopoly capitalism.
Maybe if imperial managers stopped bombing and sanctioning, people wouldn’t migrate.