Minnesota has initiated a legal battle against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing the federal entities of blocking access to critical evidence related to three shootings involving DHS agents. The state contends that its legal right to probe these incidents is being unlawfully denied, a claim that underscores tensions around the state’s authority to investigate crimes within its jurisdiction.
The legal filing alleges that both DHS and DOJ have unjustly refused to provide evidence linked to the shootings, which occurred during “Operation Metro Surge,” a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota. The incidents involve the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg. Minnesota argues that such refusals violate the Administrative Procedure Act and fundamental state rights as articulated in Touhy v. Ragen and 5 U.S.C. § 301.
The federal government has justified the shootings claiming self-defense, a stance that has further complicated state efforts to access information. Minnesota insists that federal agencies can prescribe regulations for state requests pursuant to investigations but cannot outright block information disclosure. This position is supported by 6 C.F.R. § 5.41, which allows sharing of criminal investigation-related data. Despite this, the DOJ has asserted its internal policy against disclosing information connected to Operation Metro Surge, thereby maintaining its refusal.
This lawsuit emerges amidst a backdrop of significant controversy, as the shootings ignited scrutiny over “Operation Metro Surge,” which had deployed thousands of DHS agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. Following the high-profile shootings, a civil rights probe was opened by the DOJ into Pretti’s case, but not Good’s, leading to further disputes. The Trump administration elected to scale back the operation post-incident, recalling hundreds of agents whilst maintaining a presence in the state.
Minnesota seeks a court declaration that this federal withholding of evidence is unlawful along with an order mandating its release—a move that highlights ongoing jurisdictional challenges between state and federal authorities over the handling of law enforcement operations and accountability measures.