Minnesota is at the forefront of a national conversation. Today’s chat will focus on the limits of domestic military force and our constitutional right to protest. Cut to now—the mood has changed in a big way. Almost 3,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were released under the cover of an immigration fraud investigation, illuminating the contentious federal government deployment of the undercover forces. This significant development raises profound questions reinvigorating the state-federal balance of power. As protests across the nation make clear in the wake of Portland, the stakes for these communities could not be more desperate.
The storm was the result of the resignations of six U.S. attorneys in Minnesota. They channeled their anger into a successful lawsuit against a federal investigation widely seen as an overreach. In retaliation, Governor Tim Walz responded by putting the Minnesota National Guard on standby. This strategic move shines a light on the increasingly contentious relationship between state-level governance and federal intrusion.
In a shocking incident that has drawn widespread attention, ICE agents shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good, a mother of three, in Minneapolis. This event has sparked outrage among community members and activists, who are now questioning the legitimacy and accountability of federal agents operating within their state. The tragic loss of life isn’t the only issue. ICE has a long history of violating civil rights. Violently detaining immigrant community members, including ICE agents dragging an occupant from her car as she begged them not to kill her, has become routine.
As a result, the federal response has not only been comprised of enforcement actions. In the pipeline, the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. This decision only contributes to the haziness of the future of local leadership as federal oversight looms ever larger. Protests continue to intensify in Minnesota. The planned installation of an additional 1,000 ICE agents on top of the 2,000 already and long since deployed has raised the sense of unease among the protesters.
Protesters have reported brutal encounters with federal agents, including incidents where “less lethal” weapons were used, resulting in serious injuries. Two protesters have been blinded after being shot in the face with these weapons, an event that highlights the potential for violence as tensions escalate. Critics say these actions are part of an alarming break from constitutional norms around the use of force against civilians.
Indeed, the standoff has drawn nationwide attention. President Trump is threatening to make that move and invoke the Insurrection Act, which would provide him sweeping military powers to quell dissent. This possible course of action would be completely inappropriate. It endangers civil liberties and raises a fundamental question about the appropriate role of these federal military forces in our domestic affairs. The implications of such actions could reverberate far beyond Minnesota, echoing concerns about governance and civil rights across the nation.
This situation is a near exact match to a recent Tabletop exercise hosted by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. In October 2024, they focused again on these state- and federal-power dynamics in the context of civil unrest. The exercise imagined scenarios in which constitutional limits might be pushed or ignored entirely.
Judge Menendez’s ruling on these motions in the coming weeks could represent a key turning point that allows a federal court to step in. Legal experts opine that this ruling might be among the last opportunities for judicial intervention. They fear that absent it, even Minnesota’s rosy picture will start to spiral out of control.