“We Stand Up Against Bullies”: Minnesota Sues DHS and Kristi Noem After Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
In early 2026, Minnesota found itself at the epicenter of a constitutional showdown with the federal government. Following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent and a subsequent surge of thousands of federal law enforcement agents—primarily Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—into the Twin Cities and across the state, Minnesota’s leaders took an unprecedented step. Attorney General Keith Ellison, joined by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, announced a sweeping lawsuit against DHS, challenging what they described as an unlawful “federal invasion” that violated constitutional rights, strained local resources, and sowed fear and chaos in diverse communities.
The lawsuit and public statements reflect deep anxieties about federal overreach, racial profiling, excessive use of force, and the politicization of law enforcement. They also highlight Minnesota’s resolve to defend its sovereignty, protect vulnerable communities, and uphold constitutional principles in the face of what leaders called “bullying” by the Trump administration. This essay explores the legal, social, and political dimensions of Minnesota’s confrontation with DHS, examining the constitutional arguments, the impact on local communities, and the broader significance for federalism and the rule of law in the United States.
The Surge: Federal Agents Flood Minnesota
The catalyst for Minnesota’s legal action was a dramatic escalation in federal law enforcement activity. Thousands of ICE and DHS agents descended on the Twin Cities and other urban centers, purportedly to crack down on crime and fraud. However, local officials and residents reported a very different reality: indiscriminate arrests, racial profiling, warrantless raids on homes, schools, churches, and marketplaces, and widespread fear among both immigrants and citizens.
Schools went into lockdown. Entire districts canceled classes, shifting tens of thousands of students to online education out of fear for their safety. Businesses closed, daycare centers shuttered, and local commerce plummeted as people—regardless of immigration status—became afraid to leave their homes. Local police departments, already stretched thin, were overwhelmed by the chaos and forced to divert resources from core public safety functions to respond to ICE-related incidents.
In Minneapolis alone, police responded to more than 20 ICE incidents in two days, including reports of people being pulled into unmarked vehicles and ICE agents abandoning vehicles with detainees inside. The city incurred $2 billion in law enforcement and overtime costs over just 48 hours. The scale and intensity of federal operations were, as Mayor Frey put it, “wildly disproportionate” and had “nothing to do with keeping people safe.”
The Fatal Shooting: Renee Nicole Good
The situation reached a tragic climax when, on January 7, 2026, a DHS agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, leaving her children without a mother and her six-year-old son without either parent. The shooting galvanized public outrage and became a symbol of the dangers posed by the federal surge. Local leaders and community members mourned Renee as a loving, kind neighbor who exemplified the values Minnesota holds dear—compassion, solidarity, and the courage to stand up for others.
Her death, and the broader pattern of violence and intimidation, underscored the urgent need for accountability and reform. The lawsuit against DHS was not only a legal response but a moral imperative to prevent further harm and restore trust in law enforcement.
Legal Arguments: Constitutional Violations and Federalism
Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS is grounded in several constitutional and statutory claims:
1. Violation of the Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Minnesota alleges that the federal surge constitutes an unlawful commandeering of local resources, undermining the state’s sovereign authority to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its residents. The deployment of thousands of federal agents, without consultation or coordination with local authorities, disrupts core state functions and violates the principles of federalism.
2. Violation of the First Amendment
The lawsuit contends that DHS’s actions—including the use of chemical irritants against peaceful protesters and journalists—amount to retaliation against Minnesota for its political views and exercise of free speech. The targeting of places of worship, schools, and courts is seen as an attack on fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, including freedom of religion, assembly, and the press.
3. Equal Protection and Racial Profiling
Minnesota’s leaders argue that ICE agents engaged in widespread racial profiling, arresting individuals based on skin color, accent, or appearance rather than any legitimate law enforcement criteria. Such conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and perpetuates discrimination against immigrant and minority communities.
4. Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
The lawsuit asserts that DHS’s actions are arbitrary and capricious, lacking a rational basis and failing to follow established procedures. Warrantless arrests, excessive force, and the targeting of sensitive locations are alleged to be in violation of the APA, which requires federal agencies to act within the law and respect due process.
5. Unconstitutional Use of Force
The excessive and sometimes lethal use of force by federal agents, including the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, is central to Minnesota’s case. The state argues that such conduct not only violates constitutional rights but also undermines public safety and the legitimacy of law enforcement.
The Impact on Communities
The surge of federal agents has had devastating effects on Minnesota’s communities, particularly those with large immigrant and minority populations. Schools have closed, businesses have suffered, and families live in fear of arbitrary detention or violence. The psychological toll is immense, with citizens and non-citizens alike afraid to go to work, shop for groceries, or seek medical care.
Mayor Her of St. Paul, himself a refugee whose family found safety and opportunity in Minnesota, spoke movingly about the importance of welcoming immigrants and protecting the state’s tradition of inclusion. He condemned the federal occupation as an attack on the very fabric of Minnesota’s society and vowed to fight back with every tool available.
Community organizers and local officials have documented countless instances of abuse—people detained for hours based on appearance, public works employees singled out for ID checks, peaceful bystanders pepper-sprayed, and citizens dragged from their cars or homes without cause. The sense of collective trauma and injustice is palpable.
The Politics of Retaliation
Minnesota’s leaders are unequivocal in their belief that the federal surge is politically motivated. Attorney General Ellison and Mayor Frey argue that President Trump has singled out Minnesota for retaliation because of its “diversity, democracy, and differences of opinion” with the federal government. They point to Trump’s repeated attacks on the state, its programs, and its elected officials, as well as his false claims about winning Minnesota in past elections.
The decision to flood Minnesota with federal agents, while ignoring states with much larger undocumented populations, is seen as evidence of partisan targeting. The lawsuit accuses the administration of using law enforcement as a tool to punish political opponents and sow division.
Federalism and the Rule of Law
At the heart of Minnesota’s challenge is a defense of federalism—the idea that states have independent authority and rights that must be respected by the federal government. The lawsuit invokes the Constitution as a shield against arbitrary and capricious federal actions, asserting that DHS and ICE are not above the law and that the people of Minnesota are not beneath it.
The case also raises important questions about the limits of federal power, the role of law enforcement in a democracy, and the mechanisms by which states can hold the federal government accountable. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between Washington and the states, and for the protection of civil liberties nationwide.
The Role of Local Law Enforcement
Local police departments have been caught in the crossfire, forced to respond to the chaos created by the federal surge while struggling to maintain core public safety functions. The diversion of resources to ICE-related incidents has strained budgets, exhausted officers, and undermined trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Minnesota’s leaders praised local officers for their professionalism and resilience under extraordinary circumstances, but emphasized that the real problem is not with local law enforcement but with the federal government’s actions. The lawsuit seeks to restore the proper balance, allowing local agencies to focus on their mission rather than being commandeered for federal purposes.
Community Resilience and Solidarity
Despite the fear and disruption, Minnesota’s communities have shown remarkable resilience. Residents have stood up for their neighbors, supported immigrant and refugee families, and organized to document abuses and demand accountability. Mayor Frey declared, “We don’t retreat in Minneapolis. We don’t back down in Minnesota. We stand up against bullies.”
The lawsuit is part of a broader movement to defend the rights and dignity of all Minnesotans, regardless of origin or status. It reflects a commitment to solidarity, justice, and the values that have long defined the state.
The Legal Process and Prospects for Relief
Minnesota’s lawsuit seeks immediate judicial intervention, including a temporary restraining order to halt the surge of federal agents and end the unconstitutional conduct. Special counsel Brian Carter outlined plans to file the motion and pursue swift action in court.
Success is not guaranteed. The legal challenge faces significant hurdles, including the federal government’s broad statutory authority over immigration enforcement and the difficulty of restraining executive actions. However, Minnesota’s leaders are confident that the Constitution and the rule of law are on their side, and that the courts will recognize the harm and injustice inflicted on the state.
The Broader Significance: Lessons for America
Minnesota’s confrontation with DHS is emblematic of larger struggles playing out across the country. It raises critical questions about the relationship between federal and state governments, the protection of civil rights, and the dangers of politicizing law enforcement. The case highlights the need for clear boundaries, transparency, and accountability in the exercise of government power.
It also demonstrates the importance of local leadership and community activism in defending democracy and justice. Minnesota’s willingness to challenge federal overreach and stand up for its residents offers a model for other states facing similar threats.
Conclusion
The surge of federal agents into Minnesota, culminating in the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good and widespread fear and disruption, represents a profound challenge to constitutional principles and the rule of law. Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS is a bold assertion of state sovereignty, civil rights, and community solidarity in the face of federal overreach and political retaliation.
The outcome of this legal battle will shape the future of federalism, law enforcement, and civil liberties in America. It is a test of the nation’s commitment to justice, accountability, and the protection of all its people. As Attorney General Ellison, Mayor Frey, and Mayor Her made clear, Minnesota will not back down. It stands up against bullies, defends its values, and fights for the rights of every resident—because that is what democracy demands, and what the Constitution guarantees.
