A unanimous three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit just issued an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction entered by U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez (D. Minn.) — a Biden appointee — that had tied the hands of ICE and U.S. Border Patrol agents conducting Operation Metro Surge in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area. This is a big deal, and the reasoning goes well beyond immigration.
What Judge Menendez Actually Did
Judge Menendez certified a class of plaintiffs defined as essentially everyone in Minnesota who “does or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest” against Operation Metro Surge — and then issued a sweeping preliminary injunction telling federal agents what they could and could not do in the field while interacting with that class.
Let me be precise about what that means. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) exists to aggregate claims that share common questions of law or fact — the classic airplane-crash scenario where 200 victims share identical injuries from a single event. Here, the “class” was effectively anyone in the state who might one day step outside to videotape or complain about immigration enforcement. That is not a class. That is the public.
On top of the improper certification, the injunction itself was extraordinarily broad — prohibiting federal agents from retaliating against “peaceful and unobstructive protest activity” and barring vehicle stops without “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Commands to simply “obey the law” in vague terms, with contempt exposure hanging over agents making split-second decisions on fast-moving scenes, are not valid injunctive relief. They’re a trap.
The Eighth Circuit’s Takedown
The panel, which includes Judge David R. Stras — a former Clarence Thomas clerk widely regarded as a serious SCOTUS shortlist candidate — was direct. Quoting the opinion:
The government has made a strong showing that its challenge to the injunction is likely to succeed on the merits. The grant of relief to such a broad uncertified class is just a universal injunction by another name.
That last line matters enormously. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 (U.S. June 27, 2025), with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing for a 6–3 majority, substantially curtailed courts’ authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions extending relief to non-parties. What Judge Menendez did was attempt to run the same play under a different name: dress a universal injunction in class-certification clothing. The Eighth Circuit saw through it immediately.
On the vagueness problem, the panel was equally pointed:
Directions not to retaliate against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructed protest activity or stop or detain drivers where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion are simply commands to obey the law which are not specific enough.
And perhaps the sharpest passage in the opinion addressed the realities of field policing:
The videos underscore how difficult it would be for them to decide who has crossed the line. They show a fast-changing mix of peaceful and obstructive conduct with many protesters getting in officers’ faces and blocking their vehicles… A wrong call could end up in contempt. Yet there is little in the order that constrains the district court’s power to impose it. Federal courts do not and cannot exercise general oversight of the executive branch.
That final sentence is the whole ballgame.
Separation of Powers — The Deeper Lesson
My frustration here is not just with one rogue district judge. It’s with a pattern. Article I is Congress. Article II is the presidency. Article III is the courts. An Article III court cannot babysit or micromanage an Article II executive branch operation. The power to enforce immigration law — to protect the border, to remove people who have no legal right to be here — belongs to the executive. That is the most fundamental function of the presidency under Article II.
When a single district judge in Minneapolis can effectively ground a nationwide enforcement operation by certifying a phantom class and issuing sweeping vague directives to federal agents in the field, something has gone badly wrong with how courts understand their own role. The Eighth Circuit corrected that error here, and corrected it fast — on emergency application.
Why This Connects to the Second Amendment
I have been making this argument for some time: the long-game threat to the Second Amendment is not just adverse SCOTUS decisions. It is demographic and electoral transformation. If the illegal immigration pipeline continues unchecked, the political math of constitutional rights shifts dramatically. Every Supreme Court seat, every Senate confirmation, every state legislature that touches gun laws eventually flows downstream from who votes. That is why this Eighth Circuit win matters even for those of you whose primary concern is the right to keep and bear arms.
We are winning these fights battle by battle. The Eighth Circuit panel’s stay of Judge Menendez’s injunction is one more island taken. More ahead.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.