Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks at a press conference with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Jan. 13, 2026. At left is a photo of Renee Good, 37, who was killed by an immigration officer in Minneapolis.(Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced Tuesday they will oppose any federal funding for immigration enforcement following the deadly shooting of a woman by an immigration officer in Minneapolis. 

“Our caucus will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriations bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents Minneapolis, said during a press conference.

Last week, federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis, which has seen a drastic increase in immigration enforcement for weeks following allegations of fraud. After the shooting, massive protests against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement occurred in Minnesota and across the country.

The U.S. Senate is moving forward with the remaining appropriations bills for Congress to avoid a partial shutdown by a Jan. 30 deadline, and negotiations continue over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that  funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “one of the major issues that the appropriators are confronting right now.” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said the appropriations bill for “Homeland is obviously the hardest one,” and that flat funding, or a continuing resolution, for the agency is the likely outcome.

Members of the Progressive Caucus are pushing for reforms including a ban on federal immigration officers wearing face coverings, the requirement of a warrant for an arrest and greater oversight of private detention facilities that hold immigrants. 

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said Congress also needs to pass legislation to roll back the billions allocated to the Department of Homeland Security last summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The massive GOP spending and tax cuts package provided a huge budget increase to DHS for immigration enforcement of roughly $175 billion. 

“We have to urgently pass legislation to roll back the excessive funding for immigration enforcement” in the spending and tax cuts package, Jayapal said. “We cannot support additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security without seriously meaningful and significant reforms to the way that federal authorities conduct activity in our cities, our communities and our neighborhoods.”

Progressives press Jeffries

The Progressive Caucus has nearly 100 Democratic House members. Those members joining the press conference included Omar, Jayapal, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Chuy Garcia of Illinois, Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Maxine Dexter of Oregon. 

Garcia, who is the whip of the Progressive Caucus, said the group has informed House Leader Hakeem Jeffries of their position, but did not say if Jeffries supported slashing DHS funds. 

“They are very concerned, and they also share our sentiment that we need to do something to bring reform, to bring change to stop the lawlessness, the cruelty and the abuse of power that’s taking place within ICE and (Customs and Border Patrol) and DHS,” he said of Democratic leadership. 

While Democrats do not control either chamber, one tool lawmakers have used amid the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration campaign is the power of congressional oversight of federal facilities that house immigrants and are funded by Congress. 

But following the shooting in Minnesota, several lawmakers were denied an oversight visit to a federal ICE facility, a move that Democrats argue violates a court order. 

There will be an emergency hearing in the District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday on a new Trump administration policy that argues those facilities are funded through the spending and tax cuts package and therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits. 

Jayapal called the reasoning “a B.S. argument, and hopefully the court is going to see that.” 

Investigations urged

Jayapal added that there also needs to be “independent investigations of lawlessness and violence by immigration agents and border patrol agents, and meaningful consequences for those who commit these acts of violence, not a slap on the wrist.”

Dexter, who represents part of Portland, Oregon, where two people were shot by CBP the same week Good was shot and killed, agreed.

“One thing is absolutely clear, when any law enforcement officer fires a weapon in any community, the public must have answers to questions,” Dexter said.

Ramirez said there needs to be greater accountability beyond appropriations, and said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should be impeached. 

Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly is planning to introduce articles of impeachment for Noem on three counts: obstructing Congress, violating public trust and self-dealing. While such a move likely would be uphill in the House, Republicans at the moment control the chamber by a very narrow margin.

“DHS and ICE have been empowered through a lack of oversight and too much latitude to violate our rights under the pretense of security and safety,” Ramirez said.

Frost said that Congress needs to assert its control over appropriations as a check against the Trump administration.  

“We cannot depend on this administration to police themselves and an end to the enforcement practices that are terrorizing our communities,” Frost said. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report. 

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, and Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., arrive at the regional ICE headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Jan. 10, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lawmakers attempted to access the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress Monday asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing, arguing the Department of Homeland Security violated a court order when Minnesota lawmakers were denied access to conduct oversight into facilities that hold immigrants.

The oversight visits to Minneapolis ICE facilities followed the deadly shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross. Federal immigration officers have intensified immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities following the shooting, leading to massive protests there and across the country. 

“On Saturday, January 9—three days after U.S. citizen Renee Good was shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis—three members of Congress from the Minnesota delegation, with this Court’s order in hand, attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis,” according to Monday’s filing in the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Democratic U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison of Minnesota said they were denied entry to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building shortly after arriving for their visit on Saturday morning.

Lawmakers said in the filing the Minnesotans were denied access due to a new policy from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The new Noem policy, similar to one temporarily blocked by U.S. Judge Jia Cobb last month, requires seven days notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will … and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” according to the new filing by lawyers representing the 12 Democrats.

DHS cites reconciliation bill

Noem in filings argued the funds for immigration enforcement are not subject to a 2019 appropriations law, referred to as Section 527, that allows for unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants.

She said that because the facilities are funded through the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” passed and signed into law last year, the department does not need to comply with Section 527.

The OBBBA, passed through a congressional process called reconciliation, is allowed to adjust federal spending even though it is not an appropriations law.

“This policy is consistent with and effectuates the clear intent of Congress to not subject OBBBA funding to Section 527’s limitations,” according to the Noem memo.  

Congress is currently working on the next funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers in their filing argue “members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations.”

“Members of Congress are actively negotiating over the funding of DHS and ICE, including consideration of the scope of and limitations on DHS’s funding for the next fiscal year,” according to the filing.

The Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Neguse, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that the “law is crystal clear.”

“Instead of complying with the law, DHS is abrogating the court’s order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy,” he said. “Their actions are outrageous and subverting the law, which is why we are going back to court to challenge it — immediately.”

The Milwaukee Police Administration Building downtown. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Milwaukee Police Department says it doesn’t have a plan in place if federal immigration authorities mobilize into the city at a scale similar to operations in nearby Chicago and Minneapolis. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched one of the largest operations in its history last week, sending about 2,000 agents into the Twin Cities. That mobilization resulted in an ICE agent shooting and killing 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good Wednesday morning in Minneapolis. Minneapolis schools were closed Thursday because, in a separate incident, ICE agents deployed tear gas at a high school as students were being dismissed.

Late last year, ICE’s “Operation Midway Blitz” similarly sent a large number of federal agents into the Chicago area. While the operation was underway, ICE and other federal agents killed a 38-year-old Mexican man during a traffic stop and in another incident rammed into the car of a woman who was warning neighbors about ICE presence before shooting her five times. 

The Chicago operation included at least another dozen incidents in which federal agents pointed their guns or fired less-lethal weapons at residents, according to data compiled by The Trace. 

In both cities, the massive presence of immigration authorities has caused significant ripple effects through local communities, straining the ability of local law enforcement to control crowds of observers and protesters and respond to the disruptions in traffic caused by caravans of federal SUVs traveling over city streets. 

“Local police departments and many state governors have been very firm in their communication to federal law enforcement that federal law enforcement is not welcome in their cities conducting these sorts of major operations because of the fact that it is so disruptive,” says Ingrid Eagly, a law professor at UCLA who focuses on immigration enforcement. “Because people you know can be injured and harmed, and communities are living in fear. It’s causing a great amount of disruption in communities to have this kind of strong law enforcement presence.” 

In cities across the country where ICE agents have been deployed in large numbers, local officials have had to decide how local cops engage with the operations and what that engagement communicates to local residents. Eagly says that operating as “a backup service for unprepared ICE agents” would be using local resources to legitimize ICE’s presence. 

“To send in local law enforcement, as backup, as sort of part of the enforcement team, would be essentially being part of the of the federal police force conducting ICE operations,” she says.

The operations in Chicago and Minneapolis, two largely Democratic Midwestern cities  that are frequent targets of rhetorical attacks by Republicans, are prominent displays of force in communities similar to Milwaukee. Even though Wisconsin has so far avoided the brunt of the Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement efforts, that could change. 

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that the city had to be prepared for the “eventuality” that an ICE surge is coming.

“Given what happened [Wednesday] and the young woman who was killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis, we got to prepare on the ground,” Johnson said.

But when asked if the Milwaukee Police had a plan for managing a potential ICE operation in the city, a spokesperson for the department only pointed to the department’s existing immigration policy. 

The department’s immigration policy states that Milwaukee Police officers are not allowed to cooperate with ICE’s civil immigration enforcement actions. 

“Proactive immigration enforcement by local police can be detrimental to our mission and policing philosophy when doing so deters some individuals from participating in their civic obligation to assist the police,” the policy states. 

But the written policy does not include any provisions for how police personnel should respond in the event of massive ICE presence in the community. Having a noncooperation or “sanctuary” policy could make Milwaukee a target for Trump’s mass deportation program. Despite that, when pressed for clarification because the policy does not state now the department would manage the fallout of an ICE surge, the spokesperson refused to answer.

“It states what our policy [is] in regards to immigration enforcement,” a Milwaukee police spokesperson said in an unsigned email on Tuesday, before the Minneapolis incident. “We do not have an operation like Chicago therefore cannot provide information about a policy of something that we do not have in our city.” 

Pressed again for an answer to the specific question about managing the traffic and crowd control implications of a massive ICE operation in Milwaukee, the spokesperson again refused to answer. 

“We have an immigration enforcement policy just because you do not like the answer does not mean we are going to answer different to you,” the spokesperson wrote. 

After the shooting in Minneapolis, in answer to a follow-up question from the Examiner, the MPD spokesperson again cited the department’s existing policy preventing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Update: After publication of this story, the Milwaukee Police Department provided further comment asserting its sanctuary policy serves as its plan to handle a large ICE presence in the city.

“We saw your article and assert that your title is misleading. Our policy reflects MPD’s course of action in working with immigration enforcement officials. To be clear, US Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has been present in Milwaukee for many years, even prior to the current presidential administration. You asked what our plan was if immigration authorities mobilize into the city at a scale similar to operations in other jurisdictions — our response is that we have a policy in place and we will continue to abide by our policy. That does not change regardless of the number of agents who are present in our City.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A police officer uses the Flock Safety license plate reader system. Many left-leaning states and cities are trying to protect their residents’ personal information amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, but a growing number of conservative lawmakers also want to curb the use of surveillance technologies. (Photo courtesy of Flock Safety)

As part of its deportation efforts, the Trump administration has ordered states to hand over personal data from voter rolls, driver’s license records and programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.

At the same time, the administration is trying to consolidate the bits of personal data held across federal agencies, creating a single trove of information on people who live in the United States.

Many left-leaning states and cities are trying to protect their residents’ personal information amid the immigration crackdown. But a growing number of conservative lawmakers also want to curb the use of surveillance technologies, such as automated license plate readers, that can be used to identify and track people.

Conservative-led states such as Arkansas, Idaho and Montana enacted laws last year designed to protect the personal data collected through license plate readers and other means. They joined at least five left-leaning states — Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington — that specifically blocked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from accessing their driver’s license records.

In addition, Democratic-led cities in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Washington last year terminated their contracts with Flock Safety, the largest provider of license plate readers in the U.S.

The Trump administration’s goal is to create a “surveillance dragnet across the country,” said William Owen, communications director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger privacy laws.

“We’re entering an increasingly dystopian era of high-tech surveillance,” Owen said. Intelligence sharing between various levels of government, he said, has “allowed ICE to sidestep sanctuary laws and co-opt local police databases and surveillance tools, including license plate readers, facial recognition and other technologies.”

A new Montana law bars government entities from accessing electronic communications and related material without a warrant. Republican state Sen. Daniel Emrich, the law’s author, said “the most important thing that our entire justice system is based on is the principle against unlawful search and seizure” — the right enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s tough to find individuals who are constitutionally grounded and understand the necessity of keeping the Fourth Amendment rights intact at all times for all reasons — with minimal or zero exceptions,” Emrich said in an interview.

ICE did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment.

Automated license plate readers

Recently, cities and states have grown particularly concerned over the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which are high-speed camera and computer systems that capture license plate information on vehicles that drive by. These readers sit on top of police cars and streetlights or can be hidden within construction barrels and utility poles.

Some cameras collect data that gets stored in databases for years, raising concerns among privacy advocates. One report from the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank at New York University, found the data can be susceptible to hacking. Different agencies have varying policies on how long they keep the data, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a law enforcement advocacy group.

Supporters of the technology, including many in law enforcement, say the technology is a powerful tool for tracking down criminal suspects.

Flock Safety says it has cameras in more than 5,000 communities and is connected to more than 4,800 law enforcement agencies across 49 states. The company claims its cameras conduct more than 20 billion license plate reads a month. It collects the data and gives it to police departments, which use the information to locate people.

Holly Beilin, a spokesperson for Flock Safety, told Stateline that while there are local police agencies that may be working with ICE, the company does not have a contractual relationship with the agency. Beilin also said that many liberal and even sanctuary cities continue to sign contracts with Flock Safety. She noted that the cameras have been used to solve some high-profile crimes, including identifying and leading police to the man who committed the Brown University shooting and killed an MIT professor at the end of last year.

“Agencies and cities are very much able to use this technology in a way that complies with their values. So they do not have to share data out of state,” Beilin said.

Pushback over data’s use

But critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say that Flock Safety’s cameras are not only “giving even the smallest-town police chief access to an enormously powerful driver-surveillance tool,” but also that the data is being used by ICE. One news outlet, 404 Media, obtained records of these searches and found many were being carried out by local officers on behalf of ICE.

Last spring, the Denver City Council unanimously voted to terminate its contract with Flock Safety, but Democratic Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally extended the contract in October, arguing that the technology was a useful crime-fighting tool.

The ACLU of Colorado has vehemently opposed the cameras, saying last August that audit logs from the Denver Police Department show more than 1,400 searches had been conducted for ICE since June 2024.

“The conversation has really gotten bigger because of the federal landscape and the focus, not only on immigrants and the functionality of ICE right now, but also on the side of really trying to reduce and or eliminate protections in regards to access to reproductive care and gender affirming care,” Anaya Robinson, public policy director at the ACLU of Colorado.

“When we erode rights and access for a particular community, it’s just a matter of time before that erosion starts to touch other communities.”

Jimmy Monto, a Democratic city councilor in Syracuse, New York, led the charge to eliminate Flock Safety’s contract in his city.

“Syracuse has a very large immigrant population, a very large new American population, refugees that have resettled and been resettled here. So it’s a very sensitive issue,” Monto said, adding that license plate readers allow anyone reviewing the data to determine someone’s immigration status without a warrant.

“When we sign a contract with someone who is collecting data on the citizens who live in a city, we have to be hyper-focused on exactly what they are doing while we’re also giving police departments the tools that they need to also solve homicides, right?” Monto said.

“Certainly, if license plate readers are helpful in that way, I think the scope is right. But we have to make sure that that’s what we’re using it for, and that the companies that we are contracting with are acting in good faith.”

Emrich, the Montana lawmaker, said everyone should be concerned about protecting constitutional privacy rights, regardless of their political views.

“If the government is obtaining data in violation of constitutional rights, they could be violating a whole slew of individuals’ constitutional rights in pursuit of the individuals who may or may not be protected under those same constitutional rights,” he said.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, joined at the U.S.-Mexico border Friday by a handful of other Republican senators, highlighted the president’s signature tax cuts and spending package passed last year that provided billions for immigration enforcement.

The press conference in McAllen, Texas, came after a federal immigration officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, and two people were shot by Border Patrol agents late Thursday in Portland, Oregon.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, touted how the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last summer also provided “for additional reinforcements,” such as the hiring of more Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, more than doubling its force from 10,000 agents to 22,000. Thousands more are set to be hired.

The GOP-passed bill also included $4.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 Border Patrol agents over the next four years.

Thune said because migration at the southern border has slowed, the time has come for President Donald Trump to shift his focus to immigration reform. CBP data from November, the most recent available, shows total apprehensions at the southwest border slowed to 7,350 that month.

“I think President Trump is probably the president best equipped to lead the effort to reform immigration law in his country in a way that it creates, again, those better paying jobs, opportunities for people who come to the country legally,” Thune said. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and we have to make sure we’re enforcing our laws, and that’s where it starts.”

The Trump administration has continued with its aggressive mass deportation efforts throughout the interior of the country and has moved to revoke the legal status of more than 1.5 million immigrants since taking office last January. 

Thune added that the GOP bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, also provided billions for border security.

“As a result of the passage of the One Big, Beautiful bill … we got more resources down here, not only for physical infrastructure, for the wall, but for also that virtual infrastructure, for technology and counter drone technology, all those sorts of things that make it possible for the Border Patrol to do their job,” he said.

Thune was joined by Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jon Husted of Ohio, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska.

Rounds said that under the Trump administration the southern border has undergone “a remarkable transformation.” 

“There is no such thing as a country that can be a superpower, or, for that matter, be free if they can’t defend their own borders,” Rounds said. 

Cornyn also highlighted how the bill will reimburse, up to $13.5 billion, those border states who have spent money on immigration enforcement. He said of that money, Texas will get $11 billion. 

Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news briefing in the White House briefing room on January 8, 2026. Vance joined White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to address several topics including the Jan. 7, 2026, fatal shooting of a woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a confrontation in Minneapolis. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance said Thursday the Trump administration would stand by the federal immigration officer who shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis the day prior. 

Vance defended the immigration officer’s actions as “self-defense” and berated journalists for covering the story, including by reporting that on-the-scene videos contradicted claims from the Trump administration that 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good used her vehicle to harm the immigration officer who fired three shots into her windshield. 

“I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that agent,” Vance said. “I think the media prejudging and talking about this guy as if he’s a murderer is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen from the American media.”

The Minnesota Star Tribune identified the federal immigration officer as Jonathan Ross, who Vance said was hit by a vehicle during an immigration operation six months ago.

An analysis from The New York Times of videos from three different angles show Good turning her SUV away from Ross and that he was not in the path of her vehicle when he fired three shots at close range into her windshield. 

“That ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg so you think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile,” Vance said. 

Vance also accused Good of impeding a law enforcement operation.

“I’m not happy that this woman was there at a protest violating the law by interfering with the law enforcement action,” he said. “I think that we can all recognize that the best way to turn down the temperature is to tell people to take their concerns about immigration policy to the ballot box, stop assaulting and stop inciting violence against our law enforcement officers.”

DHS operation to continue

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also defended the immigration agent during a Thursday press conference.

“This is an experienced officer who followed his training,” she said.

The federal immigration operation in Minneapolis began last month but intensified this week after a right-wing influencer reported day care centers run by members of the Somali community as fraudulent. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during the briefing that the aggressive immigration enforcement in Minnesota would continue. 

“The Department of Homeland Security will continue to operate on the ground in Minnesota, not only to remove criminal illegal aliens, but also to continue conducting door-to-door investigations of the rampant fraud that has taken place in the state under the failed and corrupt leadership of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz,” Leavitt said. 

‘Absolute immunity’

The FBI has refused to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from the investigation to have access to evidence or other case materials in order to investigate the shooting.  

When reporters in the White House briefing room pressed Vance on why the FBI is refusing to cooperate with local law enforcement officials, Vance said it was a federal issue.

“The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after and make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous,” Vance said. “The unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity.”

A federal officer can be prosecuted by local and state authorities if a federal official violates state criminal laws. 

Absolute immunity is applied to civil liability, and extended to certain positions such as the president, judges and legislatures acting in their official duty. Qualified immunity is usually applied to the conduct of law enforcement and grants them immunity from certain legal actions.

Congressional Democrats have decried the shooting and have called for a criminal investigation. 

A federal agent grabs a demonstrator as they attempt to drive a truck through the area while protesters gather after ICE officers shot and killed a woman through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue and 34th Street. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Minneapolis Public Schools canceled school on Thursday and Friday, citing safety concerns related to incidents involving Border Patrol* agents Wednesday.

Federal agents deployed tear gas at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis Wednesday afternoon as students were being dismissed, hours after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman a few miles away, according to the teachers’ union.

The incident occurred hours after an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in the Powderhorn neighborhood of Minneapolis, sparking protests and a vigil that attracted thousands. 

Roosevelt High School is home to the Spanish immersion program for Minneapolis Public Schools. The student population is around one-third African American and one-third Hispanic American, according to the district. 

The Minneapolis Federation of Educators Local 59 said in a statement a union member was detained by federal agents at the school but later released. 

“We will not tolerate ICE inhibiting our city’s youth from their constitutional right to attend school safely or inhibiting educators from doing their job,” the union’s executive board said in the statement. 

El Colegio High School, a nearby bilingual charter school, announced Wednesday that classes would be held online until further notice. 

*Correction: Due to incorrect information from the teachers union, a previous version of this article misstated which federal offcers were at the school. 

People gather around the south Minneapolis site where a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot a woman on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump defended a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis Wednesday, while congressional Democrats universally condemned the action.

Video obtained by the Minnesota Reformer shows an ICE officer demanding the driver of a maroon SUV get out of the vehicle. As the vehicle begins to pull away, an officer fires three shots through the windshield and driver-side window. The video shows no apparent harm to the officer, who walked away from the vehicle shortly after the shooting. 

But Trump wrote on social media that “it is hard to believe he is alive.”

“The woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense,” Trump wrote.

Minnesota’s Democratic congressional delegation, and other Democrats in Washington, D.C., strongly condemned the incident and questioned the subsequent comments from the administration. 

“We need full transparency and an investigation of what happened, and I am deeply concerned that statements made by DHS do not appear to reflect video evidence and on-the-ground accounts,” Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the state’s senior senator, said in a statement.  

A statement from several Minneapolis City Council members identified the victim as Renee Nicole Good, 37. A photo of the SUV shows several stuffed animals hanging out of the glove compartment.

Trump, GOP back officer

Congressional Republicans largely backed Trump’s version of events, calling the shooting self-defense and blaming Democrats for rhetoric they said inspired violence.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that the woman tried to run over the agent.

“One of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism,” McLaughlin said. “An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the victim a “domestic terrorist.” 

House Republican Whip Tom Emmer gave his support to the ICE officer.

“Our brave ICE agents put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities from dangerous criminals,” he said in a statement. “May God bless and protect them in their efforts. Shame on the elected officials who endanger these agents by spewing lies and hateful rhetoric.”

Dems call for investigation

Democrats on Capitol Hill denounced the attack and the administration’s response.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for the ICE officer who shot the woman to be criminally investigated. 

“There is no evidence that has been presented to justify this killing,” Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said in a statement. “Secretary Kristi Noem is a stone-cold liar and has zero credibility. The masked ICE agent who pulled the trigger should be criminally investigated to the full extent of the law for acting with depraved indifference to human life.”

Minnesota Democrats said the ongoing immigration enforcement campaign in the Twin Cities had heightened tensions.

“For weeks, Donald Trump has directed ICE and DHS agents to racially profile and arrest Minnesotans in their homes, their workplaces, and on our streets,” Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said in a statement, adding that more than 2,000 federal immigration agents are in the state. 

“Trump’s reckless and dangerous immigration policies do nothing to make us safer,” she continued. “Today in Minneapolis, these actions resulted in a masked federal agent fatally shooting a woman in the head.”

Democratic Sen. Tina Smith said the woman fatally shot by an ICE officer was a U.S. citizen. She called for ICE to leave Minnesota. 

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-American woman elected to Congress and whose district includes the site of the shooting, said the woman was a legal observer, which is a neutral third party who attends protests or other public demonstrations to observe and record law enforcement actions towards protesters.

“ICE’s actions today were unconscionable and reprehensible,” Omar said.

DHS practices, budget questioned

DHS received billions for immigration enforcement in last year’s tax and spending cuts package passed by congressional Republicans. The funding can be used for hiring new ICE officers and detention and removal of immigrants. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, doubling from 10,000 agents to 22,000.

A top Senate Democratic appropriator, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, wrote on social media that “Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that doesn’t restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency.” 

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said in a statement that he was concerned the aggressive DHS practices will lead to more tragedies. 

“All evidence indicates that hiring standards have been lowered, training is inadequate, and internal controls are insufficient,” he said. “These conditions have allowed agents to operate without proper oversight, and, in some cases, unlawfully.” 

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego also criticized the hiring practices of ICE, specifically calling out White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a lead architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy.  

“What happened is a disgrace and we need an investigation immediately,” Gallego said on social media. “It’s clear that that agent didn’t have the proper training, and that’s because Stephen Miller is going full speed ahead to hire as many agents as possible.”

Day care investigation

The federal immigration operation in Minneapolis began last month but intensified this week after a right-wing influencer reported day care centers run by members of the Somali community as fraudulent. 

In response, the Trump administration directed states to provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers and Noem has zeroed in on the city, which has a large Somali community, for immigration enforcement. 

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a Wednesday hearing on the issue of fraud in Minnesota.  

ICE agents stage outside of Hibachi Buffet in South Minneapolis Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026 as an estimated 2,000 more federal agents are deployed in the metropolitan area. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was in the Twin Cities Tuesday as the Trump administration launches what it’s calling “the largest DHS operation ever.”

CBS News reported over the weekend that around 2,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents are being deployed in Minnesota, in addition to the 700 already present in the state as part of “Operation Metro Surge,” which began in December.

In a video posted to the Department of Homeland Security’s official X account, Noem and several heavily armed and masked agents arrested a man in St. Paul. In another video, Noem appeared to greet and thank local ICE staff.

One photo showed Noem meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, who is leading the prosecutions of people accused of defrauding Minnesota’s social services programs.

The Trump administration’s focus on Minnesota was sparked by unsubstantiated allegations shared by right-wing media figures that Somali Americans who committed fraud were using the proceeds to fund terrorist organizations abroad.

“@POTUS Trump and @Sec_Noem have rallied DHS law enforcement personnel to keep Americans safe and ERADICATE fraud,” DHS posted on X.

ICE did not respond to the Reformer’s requests for comment.

Immigrant rights organizations have been fielding many reports of ICE arrests around the metro, but an exact number of arrests is difficult to confirm. Unlike a few high-profile raids in Minneapolis and St. Paul in 2025, which involved dozens of agents and attracted large crowds, ICE appears to be focused on conducting smaller and faster operations.

Walz blasted the deployment as a waste of government resources on social media, sharing a video from a little over a week ago showing dozens of agents leading a single person out of a Hennepin County government building. He said the Trump administration did not give his office advance notice or any additional information on the operation.

“We have a ridiculous surge of apparently 2,000 people not coordinating with us that are for a show of the cameras,” Walz said at a news conference on Tuesday. “We don’t even know they are, they’ll be wearing masks.”

Noem fired back at the governor for accusing them of misusing taxpayer dollars given the widening scandal of fraud in state-run social service programs that led him to end his campaign for a third term on Monday.

Around the country and in Minnesota, immigration agents have been accused of violating constitutional rights: detaining U.S. citizens for days, targeting individuals based on their speech; and arresting and holding people without probable cause.

In late December, ICE agents entered a private area of the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis without a judicial warrant, according to immigrant rights activists and Democratic elected officials, who urged Hennepin Healthcare to adopt a clear policy and train employees on how to interact with immigration agents.

Janna Gewirtz O’Brien, a pediatrician and president-elect of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said fear of ICE is keeping immigrant families from seeking health care.

“There is a sense of fear that has been perpetuated by our administration, and we need hospitals to step up,” Gewirtz O’Brien said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota and three Minnesota-based law firms recently sued federal immigration authorities, alleging that ICE agents and their leaders are also routinely violating the constitutional rights of the people protesting their actions.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

Neighbors confront Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Special Response Team officers following an immigration raid at the Italian restaurant Buono Forchetta in San Diego on May 30, 2025. (Photo courtesy of Pedro Rios)

This story was originally published by CalMatters. 

A series of immigration raids across California in 2025 had one thing in common: Most of the federal agents detaining people wore masks over their faces.

This month, the state of California and its largest county will ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with a few exceptions, putting local and state police at odds with masked immigration agents.

The state law gives law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to assert “qualified immunity,” the doctrine that protects officers from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing those offenses while wearing a mask is $10,000.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat who co-authored the law, said it was necessary to rein in anonymous federal agents.

“We initially were under the understanding that, oh, they’re only targeting folks who were not citizens,” Gonzalez said, “And then actually over time you learn they don’t give a [crap] who you are, they’re attacking you no matter what, with no due process.”

The Trump administration has sued to block the bill, and more than a century of federal court precedent is on its side. An 1890 Supreme Court case provides that a state cannot prosecute a federal law enforcement officer acting in the course of their duties.

The Trump administration said in its brief to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that forcing agents to reveal their identities would put the agents at risk.

During Immigration and Customs Enforcement “actions, individuals can be heard threatening to doxx and find out who officers and their family members are and where they live,” the administration’s lawyers said in the Nov. 17 brief. “There are even public websites that seek and publish personal information about ICE and other federal officers to harass and threaten them and their families.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said the issue may not be as cut-and-dried as one or two Supreme Court cases. He pointed to a 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, standoff to go to trial.

“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions,” Chemerinsky said. “Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.”

Brian Marvel, president of an organization that represents California police unions, said the law will make life harder for local cops and county sheriffs’ deputies. The organizations that represent police chiefs, sheriffs, agents in the attorney general’s office and California Highway Patrol officers opposed the law, too.

“I think that the state has put us in a tenuous position with this battle they’re having with the Trump administration,” said Marvel of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. “We don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. But unfortunately, [with] the desire for higher name recognition and elections in 2026, they decided to create things that are much more political and not geared toward legitimate public safety issues.”

Marvel said another drawback of the law is giving “a false sense of hope to the immigrant community in California” that the law will force federal agents to leave the state.

Los Angeles County supervisors have also approved a local mask ban on law enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county, a measure that will go into effect in mid-January, unless a court decision comes sooner.

Gonzalez noted that masks have played a significant role in recent California history. First, California temporarily made masks mandatory in public and at work during the pandemic. Then, a couple of years later, a rush of smash-and-grab robberies were harder to solve because the suspects all wore masks. Now, California finds itself in its third back-and-forth over face coverings.

The law provides exemptions for N-95 or medical-grade masks to prevent infection transmission, and permits undercover operatives to wear a mask.

“This is specifically aimed to federal agents because we gotta combat these kidnappings somehow,” Gonzalez said, “and this was our way in.”

Kilmar Abrego Garcia stands outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, left, and Lydia Walther-Rodriguez with CASA, after a federal judge ruled earlier this month he was allowed to remain free. (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

A federal judge in Tennessee is ordering federal prosecutors to turn over some documents to lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia as they try to show his indictment on human smuggling charges was the product of vindictive prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s nine-page ruling — issued under seal Dec. 3, but unsealed at noon Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville — said a “subset” of more than 3,000 government documents he reviewed appear to undercut the government’s defense against vindictive prosecution.

“Specifically, the government’s documents may contradict its prior representations that the decision to prosecute was made locally and that there were no outside influences,” Crenshaw wrote.

The order is a partial victory for Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who lives in Maryland, where he was stopped by immigration agents in March and deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His removal came without due process and despite an earlier court order that prohibited  immigration officials from deporting Abrego Garcia to his home country, for fear of violence.

A series of court battles ended with the U.S. Supreme Court in April ordering Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States. He was finally brought back to the U.S. in June, where he faced new charges of human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where he was let go without a citation.

Abrego Garcia argues that the smuggling charge was concocted years after the fact to punish him for embarrassing the administration in court, and should be thrown out.

The charges of “conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain” are tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tennessee, where he was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the back of his car.

Abrego Garcia was not arrested. No ticket was issued.

But three years later, as he was winning his case to be returned to the U.S., federal prosecutors were revisiting that traffic stop. A Homeland Security agent told a federal judge earlier this year that he was told on April 28 of this year to investigate the traffic stop.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, that his attorneys have claimed were filed as retaliation against their client. They claim senior officials in the Justice Department pushed for the indictment, citing television interviews where Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the investigation began after “a judge in Maryland … questioned” the government and accused it of “doing something wrong,” according to Crenshaw’s order.

The government denies involvement by higher-ups, saying the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made solely by Robert McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Crenshaw’s order includes a timeline of events. In it are several communications between McGuire and D.C.-based U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh that began on April 27, one day before a federal agent was assigned to investigate the 2022 traffic stop.

In an April 30 exchange, Singh writes that Abrego’s case is “a top priority.” McGuire writes “we want the high command looped in.”

In a May 15 email, McGuire writes about the pending indictment.

“Ultimately, I would hope to have ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General] eyes on it as we move towards a decision about whether this matter is going to ultimately be charged,” he wrote, according to Crenshaw’s order.

McGuire adds: “While ultimately, the office’s decision to charge will land on me. I think it makes sense to get the benefit of all of your brains and talent in this process and as we consider this case. I have not received specific direction from ODAG other than I have heard anecdotally that the DAG and PDAG would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later.”

Singh is updated about the indictment over the next week, according to Crenshaw’s timeline.

“These documents show that McGuire did not act alone and to the extent McGuire had input on the decision to prosecute, he shared it with Singh and others,” Crenshaw wrote.

Abrego’s attorneys successfully made a case before Crenshaw that prosecutors had acted vindictively. They sought the release of documents through discovery. Federal prosecutors balked and withheld those documents, citing privilege.

Crenshaw, in his now-unsealed order, said allowing the privilege assertion to trump due process protections would undermine rulings by other federal courts.

“The Court recognizes the government’s assertion of privileges, but Abrego’s due process right to a non-vindictive prosecution outweighs the blanket evidentiary privileges asserted by the government,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the work product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges asserted by the government precluded all discovery in the context of a vindictiveness motion, defendants would never be able to answer the question ‘what motivated the government’s prosecution?'”

A person places flowers in front of a photograph of Mother Cabrini, patron saint of immigrants, during an interfaith service on behalf of immigrants in November in Miami. GOP reversals in this year’s elections, including in Miami, are setting off alarm bells for Republicans and could cause redistricting efforts to backfire. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

GOP reversals in this year’s elections, especially in some urban and immigrant communities, are setting off alarm bells for Republicans using redistricting to try to keep control of Congress in next year’s midterms.

Redistricting plans demanded by President Donald Trump in states such as Texas and Missouri — meant to capitalize on his stronger showing among certain urban voters in the 2024 election — could backfire, as cities in Florida, New Jersey and Virginia returned to Democratic voting patterns in off-year elections this past November.

Experts see the shift as a sign of possible souring on the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda, combined with disappointment in economic conditions.

Paul Brace, an emeritus political science professor of legal studies at Rice University in Houston, said Texas Republicans are likely to gain less than they imagine from new maps designed to pick up five additional seats for the party. He said minority voters’ interest in Trump was “temporary” and that he had underperformed on the economy.

“Trump’s redistricting efforts are facing headwinds and, even in Texas, may not yield all he had hoped,” Brace said.

Redistricting efforts in Texas spawned a retaliatory plan in California aimed at getting five more Democratic seats. Other states have leapt into the fray, with Republicans claiming an overall edge of three potential seats in proposed maps.

Cuban-born Jose Arango, chair of the Hudson County Republican Party in New Jersey, said immigration enforcement has gone too far and caused a backlash at the polls.

“There are people in the administration who frankly don’t know what the hell is going on,” Arango said. “If you arrest criminals, God bless you. We don’t want criminals in our streets. But then you deport people who have been here 30 years, 20 years, and have contributed to society, have been good people for the United States. You go into any business in agriculture, the hospitality business, even the guy who cuts the grass — they’re all undocumented. Who’s going to pick our tomatoes?”

As immigration arrests increase this year, a growing share of those detained have no criminal convictions.

New Jersey’s 9th Congressional District, which includes urban Paterson, went from a surprising Trump win last year to a lopsided victory this year for Democratic Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill. Trump won the district last year by 3 percentage points and Sherrill won by 16 points. The district is majority-minority and 39% immigrant.

There was a similar turnaround in Miami, a majority-immigrant city that elected a Democratic mayor for the first time in almost 30 years. Parts of immigrant-rich Northern Virginia also shifted in the governor’s race there.

In the New Jersey district, Billy Prempeh, a Republican whose parents emigrated from Ghana, lost a surprisingly close 2024 race for U.S. House to Democrat Nellie Pou, of Puerto Rican descent, who became the first Latina from New Jersey to serve in Congress.

Prempeh this year launched another campaign for the seat, but withdrew after Sherrill won the governor’s race, telling Stateline that any Republican who runs for that seat “is going to get slaughtered.”

Prempeh doesn’t blame Trump or more aggressive immigration enforcement for the shift. He said his parents and their family waited years to get here legally, and he objects to people being allowed to stay for court dates after they crossed the border with Mexico.

“We aren’t deporting enough people. Not everybody agrees with me on that,” Prempeh said.

Parts of Virginia saw similar voting pattern changes. Prince William County, south of Washington, D.C., saw support for Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger jump to 67% compared with 57% for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris last year. The county is about 26% immigrant and 27% Hispanic.

Asian American and Hispanic voters shifted more Democratic this year in both New Jersey and Virginia, said J. Miles Coleman, an associate editor at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, expanding on a November post on the subject.

However, some of those Virginia voters might have sat out the governor’s race, Coleman said.

“I do think there is an element of Trump-curious minority voters staying home this year,” Coleman said. “There were many heavily Asian and Hispanic precincts in Northern Virginia that saw this huge percentage swing from Harris to Spanberger, but also saw relatively weak turnout.”

The pattern is “hard to extrapolate” to Texas or other states with new maps, Coleman said, “but Democrats are probably liking what they saw in this year’s elections.”

He said one of the redrawn districts in Texas is now likely to go to Democrats: the majority-Hispanic 28th Congressional District, which includes parts of San Antonio and South Texas. And the nearby 34th Congressional District is now a tossup instead of leaning Republican, according to new Center for Politics projections.

The pattern in New Jersey’s 9th Congressional District this year was consistent in Hispanic areas statewide, according to an analysis provided to Stateline by Michael Foley, elections coordinator of State Navigate, a Virginia-based nonprofit that analyzes state election data.

New Jersey Hispanic precincts “swung heavily” toward Sherrill compared with their 2024 vote for Harris, Foley said in an email. He noted that New Jersey and Florida Hispanic populations are largely from the Caribbean and may not reflect patterns elsewhere, such as Texas where the Hispanic population is heavily Mexican American.

Pou, who won the New Jersey seat, said economics played a part in this year’s electoral shift.

“The President made a promise to my constituents that he’d lower costs and instead he’s made the problem worse with his tariffs that raised costs across the board,” Pou said in a statement to Stateline.

Micah Rasmussen, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, said immigration and pocketbook issues both played a role in places like the 9th District, as did an influx of Democratic campaign money.

“The biggest reason is a sense of letdown in President Trump,” Rasmussen said. “There were many urban voters who decided they liked what Trump was saying, they liked the Hispanic outreach, they bought into his economic message. And just one year later, they’re equally disillusioned.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Members of the Texas National Guard are seen at the Elwood Army Reserve Training Center on Oct. 7, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump for now has not met the requirements to send National Guard troops to Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday afternoon in a major setback for the president.

The court’s majority rejected the Trump administration’s request to stay, or halt, a lower court’s order barring federalization of National Guard troops to assist federal immigration enforcement officers in Chicago. 

The president is only empowered to federalize National Guard units when the troops are enforcing laws that regular military forces are legally allowed to enforce, the court said in a ruling from its emergency docket that will apply while the merits of the case are argued.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

The decision on the eve of a five-day holiday weekend for the federal government appeared to be 6-3, with three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissenting. The ruling represented the first time the high court has weighed in on Trump’s use of the guard in several cities, though other legal fights continue.

The administration had not shown why the situation in Chicago, in which residents have protested aggressive immigration enforcement, should present an exception to the law, the court majority said.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority opinion said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the ruling would not detract from Trump’s “core agenda.”

“The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters,” Jackson wrote. “He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property.”

Protecting federal officers

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump appointed during his first term, wrote that he agreed with the decision to deny the motion for a stay, but would have done so on narrower grounds.

The majority opinion was overly restrictive and would block the president from using National Guard forces to protect federal property and personnel, Kavanaugh said.

Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Thomas, that their interpretation of the majority’s order could have far-reaching consequences that undermine the traditional role of the guard.

It would free National Guard members to enforce immigration law, but not to provide protection to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are assigned that function, Alito wrote. 

“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote. “I therefore respectfully dissent.”

Implications for other cities

The ruling is only in effect while the case, in which Illinois is challenging the administration’s deployment there, proceeds. 

But it marks a rebuke, including from a Trump appointee, of the administration’s strategy of deploying National Guard troops to assist in its aggressive immigration enforcement.

Trump has ordered troops to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and Portland, Oregon, to either counter crime generally or assist federal immigration officials. Governors of Democratic-led states have strenuously pushed back against those deployments. Republican attorneys general have argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer in a statement praised the ruling. “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy,” he said. “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”

Chequamegon Family Restaurant, also known as the Ashland Family Restaurant, where two workers were arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday, Dec. 15. (Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner)

Federal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested two individuals at the Chequamegon Family Restaurant (also known as the Ashland Family Restaurant) Monday, Dec. 15 in the city of Ashland in far northern Wisconsin on the shores of Lake Superior.

This is the second arrest ICE agents have made in the Ashland/Bayfield area since July when an individual was arrested at Washburn Iron Works in the city of Washburn.

The Ashland City Police Department issued a statement Friday, Dec. 19 saying that ICE and U.S. Border Patrol officers had informed the police department that federal officers had a federal warrant for two individuals at the “Ashland Family Restaurant.”

The police department noted the federal officers had “picked up” one employee in the morning, and then returned after requesting that a city police officer be present because “the restaurant staff was very upset with them the first time they were there.”

A Dec. 15 police dispatch report notes that Officer Mark Campry was requested at 12:04 p.m. to the restaurant. 

According to the police statement, when the federal officers returned with the local police officer there was a request to open the doors and a second person was taken into custody.

The police did not say what type of warrant ICE had to make the arrest. ICE has not yet responded to a request for that information.

Alexandra Guevara of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant workers’ rights organization, says there is an important difference between judicial warrants, signed by judges in cases where individuals are wanted for a crime, and ICE administrative warrants, which lack the same force.

“Nobody should open their doors for an ICE warrant. It’s an illegal instrument,” Guevara said.  “When we do our Know Your Rights trainings, it’s the first thing we tell people — you have to be able to get a warrant that is actually signed by a judge, that includes your address, that includes your name, your official name, and you have the ability to get that warrant, send it to a lawyer, send a picture to a lawyer, and ask, ‘Should I open the door or not?’”

Reporters for the Ashland Daily Press said they also were told by an employee of Deltco, a plastics manufacturer, that an employee at the plant was taken in custody by the federal officers Monday. Deltco management did not return calls from the Wisconsin Examiner attempting to verify whether an employee had been arrested.

Voces de la Frontera has identified one of the restaurant employees, a cook, as Luis Davids Coatzeozon Gomes, but has not been able to find out where he is being held.

“One of the things that happens with some of these detentions is that they’re detained and immediately sent somewhere else,” said Guevara, “so they don’t need to report them. And I mean, that creates a lot of confusion, that makes it impossible for their families to find them. It also makes it very difficult for lawyers to represent them, because they need to be in one place to be represented by a lawyer who can have access to them.”

She added, “We know that the ACLU has been dealing with that, talking all over the nation about how difficult it is now to trace where people are being taken because they’re being moved every two to three days, sometimes crossing state borders, like even being sent to places as far as Florida from here. And that makes it very, very difficult to know exactly how many people have been detained because they’re not being reported here.”

Guevara said most ICE detainees in Wisconsin are held, at least temporarily, in the Dodge County Jail. However, nearby Douglas County also has an agreement to hold ICE detainees. The ACLU reported in September that the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office had billed ICE for detaining 111 persons since the beginning of 2025.

State Rep. Angela Stroud, (D-Ashland) questioned why a city police officer accompanied the federal officers making an immigration arrest.

“My view on this is, if there’s probable cause that someone committed a crime, then you know, that’s a reasonable thing for the police to be involved in, because clearly, fighting crime is part of what we want to happen in our communities,” she said.

In answer to a question about the police involvement in the arrest, Ashland City Police Chief Bill Hagstrom sent the Ashland Daily Press a citation from the city’s police manual, 416.6 “Federal Request for Assistance” that states: “requests by federal immigration officials for assistance from this department should be directed to a supervisor. The Department may provide available support services, such as traffic control or peacekeeping efforts.”

Rep. Stroud also expressed concern about taking workers from employers struggling to maintain adequate staffing during a labor shortage in a city of fewer than 8,000 people.

“We have problems finding people to work generally around here,” she said, “and you know, we have an aging population. We have a lot of workforce shortages. What is the big picture goal here, and how does it help our community? How does this help our community?  I would like someone to explain that. And I recognize people need to, you know, follow immigration laws, but we’re seeing more and more that even people who do follow the law are being deported. And it’s just irrational. I don’t understand the big picture goal, except maybe to terrorize communities, and that’s, needless to say, is completely unethical.”

She added, “Unfortunately, we’re seeing these large raids and sweeps of people who are working and, you know, sometimes we’re even finding people who are American citizens getting caught up in that. So I recognize that people have a lot of strong feelings on this topic.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Judge Hannah Dugan leaves court in her federal trial, where she was convicted of a felony for obstructing immigration officers. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

According to the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, freshly appointed to his position by President Donald Trump, the federal trial of Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan had nothing to do with politics. “There’s not a political aspect to it,” Schimel told reporters after Dugan’s felony conviction on charges she obstructed U.S. immigration agents as they tried to make an arrest inside the Milwaukee courthouse. “We weren’t trying to make an example out of anyone,” Schimel said. “This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable because of the actions she took.”

Schimel didn’t say whether Dugan’s very public arrest and perp walk through the courthouse was also necessary, along with the social media posts by Trump’s FBI director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, crowing about the arrest and sharing photos of Dugan in handcuffs. 

There is no doubt that the Dugan case was highly political from the start. 

As a coalition of democracy and civic organizations in Wisconsin declared in a statement after the verdict, Dugan’s prosecution threatens the integrity of our justice system and “sends a troubling message about the consequences faced by judges who act to protect due process in their courtrooms.”

But Schimel is right about one thing: Dugan’s trial this week was mainly about “a single day — a single bad day — in a public courthouse.”

That narrow focus helped the prosecution win a conviction in a confusing mixed verdict. The jury found Dugan not guilty of a misdemeanor offense for concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the defendant she led out a side door while immigration agents waited near the main door of her courtroom to arrest him. At the same time, the jury found Dugan guilty of the more serious charge of obstructing the agents in their effort to make the arrest. The two charges are based on some of the same elements, and Dugan’s defense attorneys are now asking that her conviction be overturned on that basis.

An observer watching the trial from afar with no inside knowledge of the defense strategy might wonder why Dugan’s defense team didn’t enter a guilty plea on the misdemeanor charge and then strongly contest the felony obstruction charge as an outrageous overreach in a heavily politicized prosecution. That might have led to a more favorable mixed verdict, in which the jury found that Dugan was probably guilty of something, but that it did not rise to the level of a felony with a potential penalty of five years in prison.

I’m no expert, but daily reports from the trial this week gave me the strong impression that things weren’t going well for Dugan as long as witnesses and lawyers focused on a blow-by-blow account of the events of April 18. Witness testimony described an agitated Dugan, whose colleague, Judge Kristela Cervera, testified — damagingly —  that she was uncomfortable with how Dugan managed the federal agents she was outraged to find hanging around outside her courtroom. 

It’s not surprising that the jury agreed with the prosecution that Dugan was not cooperative and that she wanted to get Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom in a way that made an end-run around the unprecedented meddling of federal immigration enforcement inside the courthouse. Like other judges and courthouse staff, she was upset about the disruption caused by ICE agents stalking people who showed up to court.

But, as Dean Strang, a law professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a long-time Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer, told me in April just before he joined the defense team and stopped talking about the case to the press, “Whatever you think of the actual conduct the complaint alleges, there is a real question about whether there’s even arguably any federal crime here.” 

The government’s behavior was “extraordinarily atypical” for a nonviolent, non-drug charge involving someone who is not a flight risk, Strang added.

The handcuffs, the public arrest at Dugan’s workplace, the media circus — none of it was normal, or justified. When Bondi and Patel began posting pictures of Dugan in handcuffs on social media to brag about it, “what is it they are trying to do?” Strang asked. His conclusion: “Humiliate and terrify, not just her but every other judge in the country.”

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Voces de la Frontera, and Common Cause-Wisconsin agree with that assessment, writing in their statement reacting to the conviction that Dugan’s felony conviction threatens the integrity of our justice system as a whole, and undermines the functioning of the courts by scaring away defendants, witnesses and plaintiffs who are afraid they might be arrested if they show up to participate in legal proceedings.

But that big picture perspective was not a major feature of the defense’s closing arguments, which relied heavily on raising reasonable doubt about Dugan’s intentions and her actions during a stressful and chaotic day.

That’s frustrating because, contrary to Schimel’s assertions, the big picture, not the events of “a single bad day” is what was actually at stake in this case.

One of the most distressing aspects of the Dugan trial was the prosecution’s through-the-looking-glass invocation of the rule of law and the integrity of the courts.

The federal agents called to the stand, the prosecutors in the courtroom, and Schimel, in his summary of the case, made a big point about the “safety” of law enforcement officers. 

Repeatedly, we heard that immigration agents prefer to make arrests inside courthouses because they provide a “safe” environment in which to operate. 

In his comments on the verdict, Schimel emphasized that Dugan jeopardized the safety of federal officers by causing them to arrest Flores-Ruiz on the street instead of inside the courthouse: “The defendant’s actions provided an opportunity for a wanted subject to flee outside of that secure courthouse environment,” Schimel said.

This upside-down view of safety has become a regular MAGA talking point, with Republicans claiming that when citizens demand that masked agents identify themselves or make videos of ICE dragging people out of their cars, they are jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement officers — as opposed to trying to protect their neighbors’ safety in the face of violent attacks by anonymous thugs. 

Churches, day care centers and peaceful suburban neighborhoods are also “safe” environments for armed, masked federal agents. But their activities there are making our communities less safe. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka, delivering the prosecution’s closing argument, told the jury it must draw a line against judges interfering with law enforcement, or else “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent.”

But chaos is what we have now, with federal agents terrorizing communities, dragging people out of courthouses and private residences, deporting them without due process and punishing those who stand in their way in an attempt to defend civil society.

The real questions raised by Dugan’s case are whether we believe the “safety” of the agents making those dubious arrests matters more than the safety of our communities, and whether we want the courts to be able to regulate the conduct in their own courthouses as a check on the government’s exercise of raw power.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Republican leaders in the state Legislature called Friday for Judge Hannah Dugan to resign or be impeached after a federal jury convicted her this week of a felony charge in connection with an immigration enforcement action in April at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature called Friday for Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan to either resign or face impeachment after her conviction Thursday on a federal felony obstruction charge during an immigration enforcement action in the Milwaukee County courthouse in April.

“If Judge Dugan does not resign from her office immediately, the Assembly will begin impeachment proceedings,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said in a joint statement issued Friday.  “Wisconsinites deserve to know that their judiciary is impartial and that justice is blind. Judge Hannah Dugan is neither, and her privilege of serving the people of Wisconsin has come to an end.” 

They noted that the last time that a Wisconsin judge was impeached was in 1853. Republican lawmakers have also introduced a bill that would withhold pay for suspended judges. 

After a four-day trial, a federal court jury convicted Dugan of felony obstruction for allowing a man who was in the country without legal authorization to exit her courtroom using a non-public hallway in April. Prosecutors argued that Dugan was trying to help the man avoid plainclothes  federal immigration agents who were waiting in the public hallway outside her court. 

Judge Dugan found guilty of felony obstruction in federal trial 

The jury found Dugan not guilty on a second charge of concealing the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, from federal agents. Dugan was suspended with pay by the Wisconsin Supreme Court after her arrest by FBI agents in April. 

In closing arguments, prosecutors cast Dugan as being angry due to the influx of ICE agents in the courthouse and said no one should second-guess law enforcement, including immigration officers. Defense attorneys told jurors that courthouse immigration arrests had created an environment of unease and that the federal government was trying to make an example of Dugan.

No sentencing date has been set for Dugan. Attorney Steven Biskupic, who helped represent Dugan, has said that his team plans to appeal the conviction.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse. Judge Dugan is on trial on charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley took the stand on the third day of the high profile trial of  Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of obstructing federal immigration agents and hiding the man they came to the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest. 

Ashley was asked about an email he wrote on April 4 to his fellow judges, following a string of courthouse arrests by immigration officers. The chief judge, like many of his colleagues, was disturbed by the arrests, and feared that they would disrupt the courthouse’s business and erode the public’s trust that the courthouse was a safe place. 

Ashley wrote that ICE arrests could likely be prohibited inside courtrooms but that “I’m not sure we have the authority to intervene with what happens in the public hallway.”

As the judges were discussing a plan for responding to the ICE presence at the courthouse, Ashley offered a training presentation — which Dugan was unable to attend  — that highlighted in part that immigration enforcement could happen in the public hallways, but not against certain groups of people such as victims of crimes. 

While questioning Ashley, prosecutors showed the jury an email Dugan sent in response to the training which said that “optimally” a policy guiding how court staff should respond to the presence of immigration officers would be desirable. Less than an hour later, Ashley attached a draft policy to an email, and sent it off to Dugan and other judges. Ashley testified that he wanted as much feedback on the policy as possible, including from the sheriff’s office, the district attorney and other “system partners.” He also reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get their input, agreeing with prosecutors who said Ashley “wanted to get it right.” 

Although the policy had been drafted, it had not been officially instituted. The policy was non-binding on April 18 when agents arrived outside Dugan’s courtroom, and did not explicitly state that ICE could not make arrests in the public hallway, Ashley acknowledged on the stand. 

Part of the draft  policy advised court staff to contact their immediate supervisors about the presence of ICE, and said Ashley should be among those notified. Dugan’s defense attorneys argued in prior days of testimony that Dugan was following the draft policy when she went into the hallway outside her courtroom to confirm that the plain-clothes agents there had a non-judicial, administrative warrant and to tell them to go check in with the chief judge. The draft policy stated that all court staff were expected to comply with its guidance, and advised staff that administrative  warrants do not compel staff to comply with requests from ICE agents. 

Ashley testified that he was at home when the agents were sent to his office by Dugan. He recalled getting a call from Brian Barkow, chief deputy of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, advising him that ICE was in the building to arrest someone. After calling the deputy administrator, Ashley confirmed that agents were there. However, Ashley did not direct them to be brought to his office, the chief judge testified. Texts Ashley sent to Dugan telling her to call him went unanswered. She later replied that she had left the court to attend Good Friday church services. 

“I was concerned about what might’ve happened,” said Ashley, who then sent out another email notifying the judges about the ICE activity at the courthouse. He mentioned in the email that “all the agent’s actions were consistent with the draft policy.” 

Judges, courthouse staff upset by ICE presence

Prosecutors have accused Dugan of having “strongly held views” about ICE arrests at the courthouse. Wednesday’s testimony demonstrated that judges and courthouse staff were struggling with the arrival of ICE at the courthouse and trying to formulate a response.

On April 6, in the wake of the first arrests, Ashley issued a press release stating that ICE operating around the courthouse “can deter individuals, particularly immigrants and marginalized communities, from attending court hearings, seeking legal assistance, or reporting crimes,” and that “this undermines the fundamental right to access the courts and seek legal remedies.” This could lead to a lack of trust in the judicial system which could foster “a reluctance to engage with law enforcement, legal representation, and the courts, ultimately hindering the administration of justice.” 

Ashley read the press release on the stand, his voice booming through the federal courtroom. It stated  that “allowing ICE agents to operate within courthouse complexes has the potential to significantly damage the integrity of the court system,” and that “it undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and equality before the law, and ultimately jeopardizes the rights of individuals seeking to navigate the legal process. Courts remain safe havens for all individuals, free from the threats of immigration enforcement.”

The chief judge confirmed on the stand that he continued to hold these beliefs. During cross examination, defense attorneys showed a version of the draft policy, highlighting that it was based on a policy created by San Francisco, California. Ashley testified to editing the draft policy by removing a sentence stating that ICE agents are allowed to arrest people in the public areas of a courthouse, which appeared in the original policy from California. 

Melissa Buss, a Milwaukee County assistant district attorney who was assigned to Dugan’s court, testified Wednesday that she saw Dugan motion to attorney Mercedes de la Rosa — who was representing Flores-Ruiz — to “come here” as she stood by the jury door leading to the non-public hallway. Buss said it was unusual that Dugan appeared to be “directing” de la Rosa, and that the judge seemed “frustrated” whereas de la Rosa seemed “frazzled or confused.” Buss said that she wasn’t aware that Dugan had called Flores-Ruiz’s case early, despite audio recordings showing that Dugan spoke into a microphone and called the man’s case loudly, and set a date for him to re-appear via Zoom. 

Clerk calls ICE agent ‘fascist’

Prosecutors also called Alan Freed Jr., a deputy clerk in Dugan’s court. Freed recalled hearing from public defenders that ICE was in the hallways, saying that he was “upset and a little outraged.” Freed walked back into the courtroom to tell Dugan that there were “ICE guys in the hallway,” which was captured on courtroom audio. Freed also said that Dugan told him not to call the chief judge. Later, when Freed checked back in the hall, he saw agents walking towards the chief judge’s office after being directed there by Dugan. As one of the agents walked past Freed testified that he called the agent a “fascist.” 

Freed was grilled by prosecutors about who said what in the audio recordings, but he testified that he couldn’t recall some of the events of April 18. He’d sat through thousands of cases, including many in Dugan’s court, and had never seen a similar chain of events play out. Freed said it is not unusual for cases to be called off the record as Flores-Ruiz’s was, echoing Buss who said judges can call cases at random and that this was not unusual as prosecutors argued. 

Hasty exit out a side door

De la Rosa also testified that she was concerned about the news that ICE was in the building when she arrived at the courthouse. She’d only been a public defender in Milwaukee since March 2025, not long before ICE began arresting people inside the building. When Flores-Ruiz arrived, she was nervous to get him in and out of the building as quickly as possible to avoid contact with ICE. She asked for the pretrial hearing to be called off the record, and described herself as visibly anxious and even “obnoxious.” 

After Dugan was finished calling her case, de la Rosa recalled Dugan motioning for her and Flores-Ruiz to come by the jury door. She’d had judges lead her and clients out of side doors before, but only in particular circumstances, such as to avoid emotional victims, she said. “I kind of remember being scared or freaked out,” she testified, adding that she was stressed about the agents, and was bouncing back and forth between two languages to translate what was happening to Flores-Ruiz. “My brain was spinning,” she said. When the jury door opened into the hallway, de la Rosa testified, Dugan took a couple of steps in and directed her and her client straight down the hall towards the door that led to the public hallway. 

De la Rosa testified that she was never directed to go to the staircase in that hall, which led to a different floor, and didn’t even know that it existed. Her case had been called before attorney Walter Piel, who arrived early to court with his client. “I was a little frustrated that I wasn’t called first,” Piel testified, but added that he didn’t think that was unusual. When de la Rosa got outside, after unknowingly riding the elevator down with a plain-clothes ICE agent, she heard someone call Flores-Ruiz’s name. Flores-Ruiz ran, and agents arrested him down the street after a brief foot pursuit. 

The young defense attorney recalled being grilled about the incident by the FBI multiple times in interviews which stretched four to six hours in total. De la Rosa testified Wednesday that when Dugan allowed her to use the non-public hallway, she interpreted it as a “mentoring moment” because she was a new attorney unsure how to handle this unique situation. 

Joan Butz, a court reporter in Dugan’s courtroom, testified that she  was irritated when she heard that ICE had returned. “That pisses me off,” she remembered telling one of the other staff. Butz was captured on audio talking with Dugan about “down the stairs,” in a  conversation that wasn’t cleanly recorded. Butz testified that she offered to show de la Rosa the exit near the jury box, saying she just wanted to be helpful. Butz admitted, however, that she believed the correct exit would have been the staircase, and that the wrong exit would have been into the hallway where the agents were waiting. 

Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday, allowing the court day to conclude almost two hours earlier than usual. On Thursday, defense attorneys are expected to call several more witnesses. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Update, Dec. 10, 2025:

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release Dailin Pacheco-Acosta from custody on Wednesday, less than a day after an immigration court judge in Chicago granted asylum to Pacheco-Acosta and her husband, Diego Ugarte-Arenas. 

Pacheco-Acosta did not immediately leave Campbell County Detention Center in Kentucky, which contracts with ICE to hold detainees facing immigration charges. The couple’s attorney, Ben Crouse, told Wisconsin Watch he filed a new bond motion for Pacheco-Acosta on Wednesday afternoon, and she will return to Madison once the immigration court approves her bond. 

But her husband will remain in custody in the Dodge County Jail while awaiting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s potential appeal of the couple’s asylum claim. 

If DHS appeals and Ugarte-Arenas remains in custody, their next legal phase could take another 6 months. But Crouse noted another lawsuit winding through federal courts could reopen the more straightforward path for immigrants in ICE custody to be released on bond. That case sits in the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Wisconsin.

If ICE releases Ugarte-Arenas from the Dodge County Jail, the couple’s case would shift to the immigration court system’s “non-detained docket,” Crouse said, where cases move far slower than those of immigrants in custody.

Original story, Dec. 9, 2025:

A Chicago immigration court judge has granted the asylum request of a Madison couple who U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested during a routine check-in at the agency’s Milwaukee office in October.

Judge Eva Saltzman sided with Dailin Pacheco-Acosta and Diego Ugarte-Arenas on Tuesday afternoon, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – ICE’s parent agency – reserved the right to appeal.

The ruling does not automatically free the couple from ICE custody. 

“It’s not over,” said Ben Crouse, the couple’s Milwaukee-based attorney. 

Ugarte-Arenas remains in the Dodge County jail, which contracts with ICE to hold immigrants facing deportation, and Pacheco-Acosta sits in a county jail in northern Kentucky. A recent Trump administration policy has prevented them from posting bond and continuing their asylum case from Madison, where they settled in 2021 after fleeing Venezuela. 

The couple crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without a visa, but because of a clerical error by Customs and Border Patrol officers they encountered near Eagle Pass, Texas, they did not initially land before an immigration court and were instead able to file for asylum with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services upon reaching Wisconsin. The couple refiled for asylum with the immigration court in Chicago after their arrests in October. Neither has a past criminal conviction nor a pending criminal charge.

As they await the next step in their legal battle, the Trump administration is defending the policy that has kept the couple in custody for more than a month, even after a federal judge in California challenged its legality. How higher courts rule will determine whether thousands of immigrants in ICE custody can post bond for the first time in months.

Trump officials seek ‘mandatory detention’

Reversing decades of precedent, DHS announced in July that most immigrants in ICE custody would be ineligible for bond and are instead subject to “mandatory detention.” The Board of Immigration Appeals, a body within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that sets rules for immigration courts, sided with DHS in September. 

But a Nov. 20 ruling by U.S. Judge Sunshine Sykes of the Central District of California gave the Madison couple and ICE detainees nationwide a moment of optimism. 

Sykes partially ruled on the side of four undocumented immigrants ICE picked up during a June immigration raid in Los Angeles. The four immigrants, represented by attorneys from multiple immigrant rights organizations, had filed a class action lawsuit challenging the rule after they were denied bond. 

But both DHS and DOJ, which oversees immigration court judges, argue Sykes’ decision doesn’t apply to all immigrants in similar positions nationwide. Many immigration court judges, including in Chicago, the court with jurisdiction over most immigrants detained in Wisconsin, have continued to deny bond hearings for immigrants in custody, citing the administration’s reasoning. 

DOJ spokesperson Kathryn Mattingly said department leaders are not instructing immigration judges to specifically reject bond motions.

“Immigration judges are independent adjudicators and decide all matters before them on a case-by-case basis,” Mattingly wrote in a statement to Wisconsin Watch.

Next steps for Madison couple

Crouse, the couple’s attorney, filed motions seeking the Madison couple’s bond before the California ruling. Their motions, even if futile, could help clarify the scope of Sykes’ ruling, he said. 

Crouse and other attorneys are separately testing the last remaining pathway to release: filing “habeas petitions” asking judges to rule on the lawfulness of their clients’ detention. A district court judge in Milwaukee denied a petition for Ugarte-Arenas on Monday, and Pacheco-Acosta is still awaiting a decision from a judge in Kentucky. If Pacheco-Acosta’s petition is successful, she will receive a bond hearing. 

Back in Chicago, Judge Saltzman is preparing a written order outlining her reasoning for granting the couple asylum. DHS signaled plans to challenge her decision before the Board of Immigration appeals. It has 30 days to do so after Saltzman releases her written order. 

Though Crouse called the couple’s case strong — not least because of mounting U.S. military actions in Venezuela —  he noted that recent board decisions siding with DHS mean nothing is assured. 

After asylum win, judge rules ICE must release Madison woman who fled Venezuela. Her husband will remain detained. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Arizona, speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson on July 15, 2025. Grijalva claims she was pepper-sprayed during an ICE raid in Tucson on Dec. 5, 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security denies it. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva was involved in a clash with federal agents during a protest of immigration raids in west Tucson Friday, during which she claims she was hit with pepper spray. 

According to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency partnered with the Internal Revenue Service to carry out as many as 16 warrants in southern Arizona in a “years-long investigation into immigration and tax violations.” In videos posted to social media by community advocates, several masked federal agents in tactical gear can be seen near the westside location of popular Mexican seafood and grill restaurant Taco Giro. 

The raids prompted a protest and federal agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray against the crowd. The Arizona Daily Star reported that multiple employees who live near the west Tucson restaurant were detained. At least one protester was among those taken into custody by federal agents. AZ Family reported that Taco Giro locations in north Tucson, Casa Grande and Vail were also targeted. ICE spokesman Fernando Burgos-Ortiz confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that multiple people were arrested, but didn’t clarify how many or confirm claims that agents had pepper-sprayed a sitting U.S. Congresswoman.

Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed Grijalva’s account. McLaughlin accused Grijalva of hindering the work of federal agents and appeared to question Grijalva’s claim that she was pepper-sprayed by highlighting her lack of visible physical reaction in the video. 

“If her claims were true, this would be a medical marvel,” McLaughlin wrote. “But they’re not true. She wasn’t pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. In fact, 2 law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that (Grijalva) joined. Presenting one’s self as a ‘Member of Congress’ doesn’t give you the right to obstruct law enforcement.”

Tucson Sentinel reporter Paul Ingram, who was on-the-ground covering the ICE raid and protest, reported that federal agents shot pepper spray into his face and eye, even though he was clearly identified as a member of the press.

A video from Univision reporter Óscar Gómez shows federal agents shooting pepper spray directly into the faces of protesters, with Grijalva in close proximity. An agent is then seen coming after Gómez directly, covering his camera with pepper spray, even as Gómez appeared to be backing away.

The large-scale raid of several Taco Giros in Southern Arizona is the second time this year a restaurant chain was the subject of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, a division within ICE, that ensnared multiple employees who lack legal immigration status. 

In July, federal agents raided Colt Grill BBQ and Spirits locations in Northern Arizona. The operation was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a money laundering and labor exploitation scheme. Along with the husband-and-wife owners of the Northern Arizona restaurants, and two undocumented immigrants who were involved in recruiting and exploiting other immigrant workers, several more undocumented employees were also arrested. 

In a video posted to her X account, Grijalva described as many as 40 agents gathered at the westside location she visited with her staff for lunch, and said that she was treated with hostility even after identifying herself as a member of Congress. 

“I was here, this is like the restaurant I come to literally once a week, and was sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive,” she said. “I was asking for clarification which is my right as a member of Congress.” 

A video of the incident posted to Grijalva’s social media accounts shows a federal agent spraying several bursts of pepper spray directly at demonstrators in the street, close to where Grijalva is standing. Grijalva’s staffer jumps in front of her. Coughing can be heard offscreen. Later in the video, a pepper ball appears to explode inches from Grijalva’s feet as she walks away.

Grijalva, Arizona’s first Latina congresswoman, has been a fierce critic of immigration enforcement activity in her district. Earlier this week, she publicly condemned a Border Patrol raid of a humanitarian group’s migrant aid station in the desert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, criticizing it as an example of President Donald Trump’s “cruel (and) unconstitutional” mass deportation agenda. 

 In a statement issued shortly after she said she was pepper-sprayed, Grijalva said her office was working to get more information on Friday’s immigration arrests.

“Our residents deserve to know whether these raids are targeting genuine public safety threats – or law-abiding neighbors who have called our communities home for decades,” she wrote. “ICE has become a lawless agency under this Administration – operating with no transparency, no accountability, and open disregard for basic due process.”

While Trump administration officials have time and again emphasized their intent to detain the “worst of the worst”, many of the immigrants that ICE has arrested during Trump’s second term have no criminal record. A June survey of people in immigration detainment facilities at the time found that nearly half, 47%, lacked any criminal history and fewer than 30% of them had been convicted of crimes.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state’s top legal officer, denounced the incident on social media. In a post on X, the Democrat, who has long criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions,” Mayes wrote. “Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

Grijalva voiced concern for how federal officials interact with people who don’t have her authority, in light of how she was mistreated on Friday.

“While I am fine, if that is the way they treat me, how are they treating other community members who do not have the same privileges and protections that I do?” she questioned, in her written statement. 

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with eyewitness reporting from the Tucson Sentinel and Univision. 

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A federal board ruling has paved the way for courts to more easily toss out asylum cases and instead deport applicants, not to their home country, but to a “third country” they barely know.

• The ruling has the potential to affect the cases of thousands of immigrants who entered the asylum process since 2019.

• The Department of Homeland Security is using its extra power inconsistently, moving to send some asylum seekers to third countries while making more traditional motions in other cases. One immigration attorney says it illustrates the “crazy arbitrariness of the system.”

Milwaukee immigration attorney Anthony Locke spent the first weekend in November wrapping his head around the latest ground-shaking rule change for asylum cases. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counterpart apparently did the same while pushing to deport one of Locke’s clients.

Locke represents a Nicaraguan asylum seeker arrested in a late September ICE operation in Manitowoc. That client was set to appear before an immigration court judge on Nov. 4 in a hearing Locke hoped would move the man closer to securing his right to remain in the U.S. 

But five days earlier, the Board of Immigration Appeals — a powerful, if relatively obscure Department of Justice tribunal that sets rules for immigration courts — had paved the way for courts to more easily toss out asylum cases and instead deport applicants, not to their home country, but to a “third country” they barely know. 

Just before the Nov. 4 hearing, the DHS attorney motioned to dismiss Locke’s client’s case and deport him to Honduras, through which he had only briefly passed on his trek north. Locke now has until early December to argue that his client could face “persecution or torture” in Honduras. 

“Trying to demonstrate that they’re scared of a place they’ve had minimal contact with,” he said, is akin to proving a negative. 

If the judge sides with DHS, the Nicaraguan man will be sent to Honduras without an opportunity to make his case for remaining in the U.S.

“I am, quite frankly, not too hopeful, and I’ve had to be quite honest with my client about that,” Locke said. “This is so sudden, so jarring, and it has such an immense impact.”

The full impact of the appeals board ruling remains to be seen, but it has the potential to affect the cases of thousands of immigrants who entered the asylum process since President Donald Trump’s first administration in 2019 began establishing “safe third country” agreements, starting with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. 

U.S. law for decades guaranteed anyone physically present in the U.S. the right to seek asylum, but the agreements allowed the U.S. to instead send asylum seekers to third countries to seek legal status there. 

While Joe Biden suspended most third country agreements during his presidency, Trump, upon returning to office in January, revived them as a means to limit asylum applications and facilitate deportations. The list of countries willing to accept the deportees is still growing, though not all have signed formal “safe third country” agreements.

The Board of Immigration Appeals overhauled the process of sending an asylum seeker to a third country. Its ruling allows DHS to send asylum seekers to countries through which they did not pass en route to the U.S. It also requires immigration courts to consider whether asylum seekers can be sent to a third country before hearing their cases for remaining in the U.S., creating the proving-a-negative scenario Locke described. 

The ruling may not impact those who filed for asylum before third country agreements were forged. 

DHS did not respond to Wisconsin Watch’s request for comment.

Locke’s client entered the U.S. in 2022, requesting asylum on the grounds that his protests against Nicaragua’s ruling party made him a target for persecution. The man entered the country through a Biden-era “parole” program that allowed some immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to live and work in the U.S. for two years, Locke said. Roughly a third of new arrivals to Wisconsin who entered the immigration court system since 2020 came from Nicaragua, though not all secured parole. 

The Trump administration ended the parole program earlier this year, claiming that the roughly 500,000 immigrants who entered the country through the program had not been properly vetted and that participants limited opportunities for domestic workers.

Locke’s client landed in the immigration court system in September after his arrest in Manitowoc. He is currently in custody in the Dodge County jail — one of a growing number of local detention facilities in Wisconsin housing ICE detainees. 

One of his fellow detainees, Diego Ugarte-Arenas, faces a similar predicament. The 31-year-old from Venezuela entered the U.S. in 2021 alongside his wife, Dailin Pacheco-Acosta. The couple filed for asylum upon reaching Wisconsin, citing their involvement in opposition to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Pacheco-Acosta found work as a nanny in Madison, and Ugarte-Arenas found a restaurant job. 

ICE last month arrested the couple during a routine check-in at DHS’ field office in downtown Milwaukee, forcing them to argue their asylum case in the immigration court system. Ugarte-Arenas remains in Dodge County, while his wife sits in a county jail in northern Kentucky. Another recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision limits their ability to post bond and continue their case while reunited in Wisconsin. 

The couple appeared in court for the first time on Nov. 12, both via video call. Though separated by hundreds of miles, the cinderblock walls behind them made their settings look almost identical. 

As they waited for their case to reach the top of the queue, the couple watched the court field-test the new rule on third-country deportations as the DHS attorney motioned to send another asylum seeker to an unnamed third country. But when Judge Eva Saltzman called their case, the DHS attorney did not make the same motion.

“When you move this quickly and have this volume of cases, not every case gets treated the same,” said Ben Crouse, an attorney representing the couple. The inconsistency, Crouse said, reflects the “crazy arbitrariness of the system.” 

After scheduling a follow-up hearing, Saltzman allowed the couple to speak to one another for the first time since their arrest. 

“Everything will be OK, you hear me?” Ugarte-Arenas said through tears. 

Saltzman moved on to the next case.

‘So sudden, so jarring’: Immigration ruling streamlines deportations to countries asylum seekers barely know is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.