A Judge, a Setback, Two Dead and an Escalation Without a Way Back

Minnesota has been living for weeks under a state of emergency that is not explained but imposed. Thousands of armed federal agents, streets filled with tactical gear, tear gas, gunfire, dead. Now a federal judge has rejected an attempt by the state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to at least temporarily halt this operation. It is a decision grounded in formal legal reasoning that leaves behind a political and human void that grows larger with each passing day.

Judge Kate Menendez found no sufficient basis to provisionally suspend the so called Operation Metro Surge. In her view, the state and the municipalities failed to convincingly demonstrate at what point a massive federal policing operation becomes unconstitutional overreach. The argument that the deployment was so extreme that it necessarily crossed that line was not enough for her. Two dead and numerous injured apparently were not enough either. That, she wrote, was too thin a basis for a preliminary injunction. Legally, this is a refusal of swift intervention. Politically, it is a wrong decision: the federal government may continue. And it is no longer disputed what this operation has caused. Two people have been killed by gunfire from federal agents, countless others injured. Thousands have been arrested, entire neighborhoods have lived in fear for weeks. Protests have become a daily reality, accompanied by a massive police presence and ever new escalations. Minnesota’s attempt to at least return to the previous level of enforcement failed on the high threshold that constitutional law sets for such a halt or that the judge set for herself.

At the same time, it is striking and contradictory how clearly the judge herself names the consequences of the operation. In her decision, she notes that there are indications of racial profiling, excessive use of force and other harmful practices. She speaks of profound, in part heartbreaking consequences for the state, the cities and their residents. The ruling is therefore not an acquittal of the conduct but a sober finding: the legal standard for immediate intervention has not been met, even though the events are grave. The political reaction followed promptly. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly celebrated the decision as a victory for public safety and order and at the same time circulated reports about arrests in Minnesota. In Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey reacted with clear disappointment. For him, the decision changes nothing about what people on the ground are experiencing: fear, disruption, damage caused by a federal operation that in this form should never have been part of the city. The city intends to continue the case.

The legal background is complex and at the same time telling. Minnesota invokes the Tenth Amendment, which protects the autonomy of the states, and argues that the operation also serves to force the state and municipalities to cooperate in civil immigration enforcement. The federal government rejects this and declares that it is merely enforcing existing federal law. That President Trump publicly spoke of reckoning and retaliation and explicitly mentioned Minnesota fed into the judge’s questions but changed nothing in the outcome.

At the same time, a second picture is taking shape that further burdens the operation. Gregory Bovino, one of the most visible figures responsible for the operation, is said to have made disparaging remarks about the Jewish faith of Minnesota’s attorney general during a phone call. Several people familiar with the conversation report that Bovino used the term chosen people mockingly and scoffed at the fact that Orthodox Jews are not reachable on the Sabbath. The remarks were made in a context in which Bovino was demanding more criminal prosecution of demonstrators. These statements add another dimension. Under existing law, defense attorneys must be informed of information that calls an officer’s credibility into question if that officer appears as a witness. That is precisely what makes the incident so explosive for the justice system. Bovino himself did not comment, the Department of Homeland Security deflected and tried to dismiss the criticism as trivial gossip. The prosecutor’s office remained silent.

Bovino is no unknown figure. In other cities he had already sparked outrage with heavily armed appearances, aggressive conduct and open conflicts with local authorities. In Chicago, a federal judge explicitly reprimanded him after he fired tear gas at demonstrators without warning. The court later found that he had repeatedly made false statements about his units’ tactics. In Minnesota, he became the face of an operation that is increasingly spiraling out of control. Particularly grave are the deaths of Renne Good and Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse and US citizen who was shot by federal agents. After the incident, Bovino said the man had planned a massacre of security forces. Videos, however, show a different picture: Pretti is wrestled to the ground, a weapon is secured near him, then he is shot multiple times from behind. The contradiction between the official account and the video material is glaring.

This creates an overall picture that can no longer be explained by individual mistakes. A massive federal operation that is not legally halted even though its consequences are openly named. Officials whose conduct and statements themselves raise doubts within the justice system. A population living between armed units, protests and fear. The court’s decision may be formally correct. Politically and socially, it now shifts responsibility entirely into a space where it has so far hardly been assumed. The questionable ruling is practically an instruction that citizens will resist even more forcefully. Chaos and worse are preprogrammed.

To be continued .....