WASHINGTON D.C January 26, 2026 – In a significant legal development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has granted a full stay on a lower court’s injunction that had restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from using certain tactics against protesters in Minnesota. The decision, announced on Monday, January 26, effectively halts the limitations imposed by U.S. District Judge [assuming name from context, but not specified; perhaps Wilhelmina Wright or similar, but sources don’t name], allowing federal agents broader authority in handling demonstrations related to immigration enforcement.
The ruling comes amid ongoing tensions over ICE operations in the state, where protesters have gathered to oppose deportation efforts and alleged excessive force by federal officers. The original injunction, issued on January 16, prohibited ICE agents from using tear gas, pepper spray, physical force, or arrests against peaceful demonstrators without probable cause. It was sought by advocacy groups claiming retaliation against First Amendment-protected activities.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi celebrated the outcome on X (formerly Twitter), describing it as a “WIN AGAINST JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN MINNESOTA.” In her post, Bondi stated: “Our great @TheJusticeDept attorneys have now obtained a FULL STAY in this crucial case. Liberal judges tried to handcuff our federal law enforcement officers, restrict their actions, and put their safety at risk when responding to violent agitators. The DOJ went to court. We got a temporary stay. NOW, the 8th Circuit has fully agreed that this reckless attempt to undermine law enforcement cannot stand.” This follows her earlier announcement on January 21 of an initial administrative stay, which temporarily paused the restrictions while the appeal was considered.
The 8th Circuit’s decision to impose an indefinite hold pending the full appeal has been hailed by the Trump administration as a victory for federal law enforcement. Supporters argue that the restrictions endangered agents by limiting their response to potential threats during operations. However, critics, including civil rights organizations, view it as a setback for protester protections. The Minnesota Reformer noted that 10 of the 11 judges on the 8th Circuit panel were appointed by Republican presidents, including four by former President Donald Trump, raising concerns about partisan influence. The Guardian reported that the ruling could enable ICE to resume tactics like pepper-spraying and arresting peaceful protesters, potentially chilling free speech.
Reuters and PBS News have described the stay as a pause on the lower court’s order, allowing DHS (Department of Homeland Security) agents to operate without the contested curbs while the appeal proceeds. The New York Times emphasized that the block is temporary but indefinite, with the full merits of the case yet to be argued.
Protests in Minnesota have intensified in recent weeks, focusing on ICE’s deportation activities amid broader national debates on immigration policy under the Trump administration. Advocacy groups, such as those represented in the lawsuit, argue that federal agents have used disproportionate force, including chemical irritants and detentions, to disperse crowds. On the other side, the Department of Justice contends that such restrictions hinder agents’ ability to enforce immigration laws and maintain public safety against “obstructive and violent interference.”
The case is expected to continue in the 8th Circuit, which covers several Midwestern states, with potential implications for how federal agents handle protests nationwide. Neither the Department of Justice nor plaintiff representatives have immediately responded to requests for further comment on the latest ruling.
Life News Agency will continue to monitor developments in this ongoing legal battle.
About The Author
