“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A district judge had restricted ICE from actions abusing witnesses, bystanders and protest participants in Minnesota. The Justice Department went to an 8th Circuit panel to try to lif those restrictions.
What happened in this case?
In response to a lawsuit contending that federal agents were mistreating bystanders and protesters during immigration enforcement activities, a Minnesota federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that stopped federal ICE agents from “interfering” with peaceful protesters. The Justice Department filed a motion with the Eighth Circuit seeking a stay of the injunction as the case proceeds. In an unsigned opinion by Trump judge David Stras and George W Bush judge Bobby Shepherd, to which George W Bush judge Raymond Gruender dissented in part, the Eighth Circuit granted the stay in January 2026 in Tincher v Noem.
How did Trump judge Stras and Bush judge Shepherd rule?
The 2-1 opinion granting a stay in which Trump judge Stras cast the deciding vote claimed that protesters and observers were engaged in a “wide range” of differing activities, and that the injunction was too “broad” and “vague” to stand. The stay will remain in effect until the case is resolved on the merits
What did Judge Gruender say in dissent?
Although agreeing with the majority in some respects, Judge Gruender disagreed and dissented on two grounds. First, he wrote that the government had not “made a strong showing” that the lower court had erred in granting preliminary injunctive relief. Even more important, he strongly maintained that the court had properly enjoined ICE agents from “using pepper spray” or similar substances against “people who are engaging in “peaceful and unobstructive protest activity.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Stras is yet another example of Trump judges upholding harmful Trump Administration actions against people who protest the aggressive immigration enforcement activities. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.