Court Makes Emergency Ruling on ICE Operations in Minnesota
Judge Refuses To Halt ICE Ops in Minnesota Amid Legal Challenge
A federal judge on Wednesday declined to immediately block the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, saying there was insufficient time to fully consider legal arguments in the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.
Advertisement
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, a Biden appointee, heard arguments in a lawsuit filed earlier this week by the State of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, which sought to halt a surge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents conducting sweeps across the state. Plaintiffs allege the federal campaign has involved warrantless arrests, excessive force, and violations of constitutional rights.
Menendez said at a hearing that she could not issue a ruling on Wednesday due to the complexity of legal issues and limited precedent addressing the scope of federal immigration enforcement authority in this context.
The judge set deadlines for the U.S. Justice Department to respond by Jan. 19 and for state officials to file additional arguments by Jan. 22, with a ruling on the restraining order expected later this month.
“That should not be taken as a prejudgment of the merits of either the plaintiff’s case or the anticipated defense that may be raised by the United States,” Menendez said. “It is simply observing that these are grave and important matters and that they are somewhat frontier issues in constitutional law.”
Advertisement
State officials, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, argued federal agents have engaged in heavy-handed tactics that have eroded public trust and endangered residents. Government attorneys countered that officials have had limited time to respond to the lawsuit and that the operations are lawful and necessary.
Advertisement
Also, there is limited precedent from federal courts that reign in federal agents and agencies from performing their constitutional and statutory duties anywhere in the United States or U.S. possessions.
The lawsuit comes amid heightened tensions in Minneapolis following the Jan. 7 shooting death of Renee Good by an ICE agent during an enforcement action, which sparked widespread protests and scrutiny of federal tactics. Federal agencies have made thousands of arrests statewide since the operation began in December.
For now, the immigration sweeps will continue while the court weighs whether to impose restrictions or halt the activities.
Meanwhile, immigration enforcement may be ramping up at the Hennepin County Medical Center, the state’s largest public safety net hospital, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
MPR News reported on Wednesday that ICE agents were entering hospitals with detainees, sometimes without warrants, and – according to five Hennepin Healthcare nurses who requested to remain anonymous – were attending patient appointments.
Additionally, an anonymous employee at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport shared a memo with FOX 9 outlining plans for ICE agents to spend three weeks at the airport checking the documents of travelers and employees.
Federal officials also say that the ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good during a chaotic encounter in Minneapolis last week suffered internal bleeding to the torso, a revelation that bolsters claims that the officer acted in self-defense.
Sources briefed on the agent’s medical condition told reporters that the injury occurred when Good’s vehicle struck the officer, identified as Jonathan Ross, a 10-year law enforcement veteran. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed the internal injury but declined to release additional medical details, citing privacy concerns.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said earlier that Ross had been treated at a local hospital immediately following the January 7 shooting and was released the same day. “The officer was hit by the vehicle. She hit him. He went to the hospital. A doctor did treat him. He has been released,” Noem said at the time, adding that Ross “acted to protect himself and his fellow agents.”
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.
Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.
WATCH IT: Trump Shreds 'Fake News' Kristen Welker, Storms Out of Interview
Washington, D.C. - June 8, 2026
President Trump Abruptly Ends Meet the Press Interview During Discussion of California Elections
President Donald Trump walked out of an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker on Sunday after a heated exchange over the slow vote-counting process in California’s recent elections. The interview, conducted in Wisconsin, covered topics including negotiations with Iran and the status of several California races that remained unresolved days after Election Day.
Interview Context and Escalation
The discussion turned contentious when the conversation shifted to California, where multiple races continued to see shifts in results as additional ballots were processed. Trump criticized the extended timeline for finalizing vote counts, describing the system as flawed and comparing it unfavorably to processes in other countries. He pointed to changes in leads in certain contests as evidence of problems with how votes are tallied and reported.
Welker responded that the counting method follows standard procedures in California. Trump expressed frustration with what he viewed as inadequate media scrutiny of the delays and vote swings. The exchange ended with Trump stating that he had had enough of the discussion.
“So let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling, have a good time.”
Trump then left the interview.
California Election Developments
Several California races, including contests in Los Angeles and state legislative districts, remained too close to call or saw leads narrow in the days following the June 2 primary. In one notable example, a candidate who held a substantial lead on election night saw that margin reduced significantly with the arrival of later ballot batches. Additional ballots are still expected in some areas.
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli has indicated that his office is examining potential irregularities in the state’s election processes. Officials have attributed the delays to standard procedures for processing mail-in and provisional ballots, while critics argue that the extended timelines undermine public confidence in the results.
Broader Reactions and Statements
Trump has long voiced concerns about election administration in certain states, including questions about 2020. During the interview, he linked the current California situation to wider issues of electoral integrity and media coverage. Welker maintained that the process reflects established state practices.
The abrupt conclusion of the interview drew immediate attention on social media and in news coverage. Supporters of the president praised his decision to end the exchange, while critics described the walkout as an overreaction to routine questioning.
The interview had also touched on U.S. efforts regarding Iran and the path toward any potential agreement to end ongoing conflict. Those portions of the discussion did not appear to trigger the same level of tension as the segment on California elections.
Implications for Public Discourse
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and segments of the national media. Trump has frequently accused major outlets of biased coverage, particularly on election-related matters. Media representatives, including Welker, have defended their role in asking pointed questions of public officials.
California election officials have stated that the current counting timeline is consistent with past practices in the state, which relies heavily on mail voting. However, the extended period before final certification has prompted renewed calls from some quarters for reforms aimed at faster and more transparent tabulation.
As additional ballots continue to be counted in California, several races remain fluid. The U.S. Attorney’s review adds another layer of scrutiny to the process. The full transcript and video of the Trump-Welker exchange are expected to be released by NBC in the coming days.
