Eve is here. The Conversation, a normally modest publication of articles written by academics for the general public, is sounding the alarm about constitutional violations by ICE and DHS. This article provides a high-level overview and highlights important issues about the federal government’s historical role in curbing civil rights violations. Note that this is a relatively recent event historically, as evidenced by the persistent acts of terrorism by Secretary Bull Connor and the Klansmen in Birmingham, and the lack of federal action during the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Written by Michael J. Lansing, professor of history at Augsburg University, and Jofur Williams, professor of history at the University of St. Thomas. Originally published on The Conversation
Forcibly entering a residence without a judicial warrant. Journalists who reported on the protests were arrested. He defied dozens of federal orders. Killing American citizens for disobedience. When you ask a constitutionally protected observer this chilling question, “Didn’t you learn?”
This is everyday life in Minnesota. Operation Metro Surge, ostensibly an immigration enforcement effort, became more of a constitutional stress test. Can constitutional protections withstand actions by the federal government that appear to actively undermine the rule of law?
In Minneapolis, where a harsh history of policing remains, the federal operation raises fundamental questions about the limits of law enforcement and executive power.
Legal scholars and civil rights activists, as well as other observers, including historians like us, are particularly concerned about continued violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments.
catalog of violations
First Amendment concerns stem from reports that ICE (described by some scholars as a paramilitary force) and Border Patrol agents are using excessive force and deploying sophisticated surveillance methods against suspects, observers, and journalists. When enforcement actions impede the rights to assemble, record, and criticize government actions, those rights are atrophied and the impact extends beyond a single demonstration. These rights are not peripheral to democracy. They are the central characters.
The shooting death of legally armed Alex Preti in Minneapolis has sparked questions about the Second Amendment. Officials maintained that Americans could not bring firearms to protests, despite a long-standing interpretation in most states, including Minnesota, that anyone legally allowed to possess a firearm can bring one to a protest. This claim actually ran counter to the Trump administration’s support for gun rights.
Concerns over the Fourth Amendment are best known thanks to videos flooding social media. Charges include entering a home without a warrant, stopping and threatening a law enforcement officer to arrest him, and detaining a suspect based on appearance or accent. These are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are designed to prevent the government from exercising arbitrary power.
Finally, the Tenth Amendment is central to Minnesota’s lawsuit against the federal government.
One lawsuit challenges the federal government’s refusal to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Investigation to investigate the murders of Renee Good and Alex Preti. Another challenges efforts to pressure local governments to support federal immigration enforcement. These conflicts involve federalism itself, the constitutional division of powers between the states and the federal government that is the foundation of the American system.
It is surprising that these alleged constitutional violations have accumulated so massively and rapidly in a single geographic location that they are now being tried in court. So are the mass resignations of state attorneys’ offices, which represent the federal government in such cases.
And so is the deeper historical background.
Withdrawal from federal constitutional oversight
Beginning in 1994, federal intervention became a powerful remedy whenever local police violated constitutional rights.
From Newark to New Orleans, federal oversight was not always welcomed, but it was often necessary to enforce equal protection and due process.
If local governments did not exercise civil rights, federal oversight was essential. These cities actively monitored police activities to hold officers and administrators accountable and encourage officers to adhere to constitutional standards. At its core, what experts call the “constitutional police” requires that the government’s use of power to ensure order be justified, limited, and subject to scrutiny.
In that vein, a 2023 U.S. Department of Justice report on Minneapolis police identified problematic patterns and practices after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. These issues included the “unreasonable” use of deadly force, racial profiling, and retaliation against journalists. The consent decree proposed by the Department of Justice was based on constitutional policing and provided a path forward.
But in May 2025, the Justice Department, under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s appointee Pam Bondi, withdrew the recommended deal.
Seven months later, Operation Metro Surge sent thousands of federal agents to Minnesota with a markedly different enforcement philosophy.
Indeed, the recent expansion of federal enforcement powers in Minnesota follows a withdrawal from federal constitutional oversight.
Excerpts from Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schultz’s opinion allege that ICE violated more judicial orders in January 2026 than “some federal agencies have violated throughout their entire existence.”
remove handcuffs
An executive order signed by President Trump in late April 2025 entitled “Strengthening and Freeing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens” promised to remove so-called “handcuffs” placed on police officers.
Shortly after, the administration sent the National Guard to Los Angeles amid immigration protests.
In August 2025, the president sent the National Guard to Washington, D.C., purporting to reduce crime, although a federal judge later denied there was a legal basis for its implementation. In September 2025, President Trump described American cities as potential “training grounds” for the military to confront what he called “the enemy from within.”
Each episode reflects an ever-expanding view of the powers of the executive branch.
It remains to be seen whether Operation Metro Surge ultimately stands up to judicial scrutiny. A number of lawsuits are currently proceeding in court.
But broader problems are already evident. How much of a burden can the American legal system absorb when the executive branch directly challenges so many Bill of Rights protections at once in the name of national security? Will fundamental constitutional rights survive this moment?
What’s happening in Minnesota isn’t just a story of local enforcement. It is a test of the survival of the Constitution as we know it.
