8th Circuit Stays Lower Court Injunction of Federal Immigration Enforcement Operations in MN – RedState
There are numerous lawsuits pending regarding the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota (Operation Metro Surge), but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals just pressed pause on one of them, issuing a stay pending appeal in the case titled Tincher v. Noem.
As Bob Hoge reported, U.S. District Court Judge Kate Menendez issued a preliminary injunction on January 16, which:
ordered officers not to retaliate against people “engaging in peaceful, non-obstructive protest activities” or to use pepper spray or other “crowd dispersal tools” in retaliation for protected speech. The judge also said officers cannot arrest or detain protesters in vehicles that do not “obstruct or forcibly interfere” with officers.
READ MORE: Biden Appointed Judge Incapacitates ICE – You Can’t Use Non-Lethal Weapons Or Arrest ‘Peaceful’ Agitators
The administration appealed this injunction and requested an administrative stay of it, as well as a stay pending appeal. The 8th Circuit issued an administrative stay Wednesday and has now issued a formal stay pending appeal.
The court’s decision is brief (only six pages) and hinges on its determination that the district court’s injunction is both too broad and too vague (citations omitted):
We accessed and viewed the same videos as the district court. What they show are observers and protesters engaging in a wide range of behavior, some peaceful, but mostly not. They also show federal agents reacting in various ways. Even the named plaintiffs’ claims involve different conduct, by different officers, at different times, in different places, in response to different behavior. These differences mean that there are no “questions of law or fact common to the class” that would allow the court to decide all of their claims “at one go.”
Second, in addition to being too broad, the injunction is too vague. Instructions not to “[r]etaliat[e] against persons who engage in peaceful and non-obstructive protest activities” or “[s]high[] or hold[] drivers. . . where there is no reasonably articulable suspicion” are simply orders to “obey the law”, which are “not specific enough”.
Even the provision that distinguishes the use of “pepper spray or similar non-lethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools” requires federal agents to predict what the district court would consider “peaceful, non-obstructive protest activity.” The videos highlight how difficult it would be for them to decide who crossed the line: They show a rapid mix of peaceful and obstructive behavior, with many protesters confronting the police and blocking their vehicles while they carry out their activities, only to have some of them join the crowd and mix with others who were simply recording and observing the scene. A bad decision could result in contempt, but there is little in the order that limits the district court’s power to impose it. “[F]”The federal courts do not exercise general control over the executive branch,” and the structural injunction imposed here, given its breadth and vagueness, constitutes too great a step in that direction.
Of course, this is not the end of the investigation. It simply pauses the district court’s injunction while the merits of the case are resolved. We will continue to monitor and report on any developments as warranted.
Editor’s note: Do you like RedState’s conservative reporting that attacks the radical left and the woke media? Support our work so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code STRUGGLE to benefit from 60% off your VIP subscription!
