As expected, the able District Court Judge Menendez has ruled, this evening.
She has given the upper court [Eighth Cir.] the ability to dispose of the appeal — which is always preferred, where no live issue still exists, as the basis for the appeal.
Sorry, Noemites — you are going to lose — again. From the indicative ruling then:
…Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Defendants emphasize that the Injunction covers plaintiffs who “record, observe, and/or protest Operation Metro Surge and related operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.” (Id. at 81 ¶ 1 (emphasis added).) But Defendants’ focus on “and related operations” strips this clause of its context. The plain language of the Injunction — both in its discussion of the Court’s limitations as to breadth and in the decretal language — clearly ties it to OMS, which is now over. Moreover, Defendants’ reading would vitiate any temporal limit whatsoever on the Injunction, which is far from the limited order the Court intended….
Defendants oppose dissolution of the Injunction because Plaintiffs refuse to dismiss the case as a whole. They argue that “if the preliminary injunction is moot, then so is Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.” (Dkt. 245 at 5.) According to Defendants, Plaintiffs are engaged in a “gambit” designed “to evade a potential adverse decision from the Eighth Circuit.” (Id. at 7.) Defendants’ argument that the case as a whole suffers from the same mootness issues that Plaintiffs ascribe to the Injunction is not without some force. It is not yet apparent whether there is, in fact, any daylight between the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Injunction is moot and their anticipated position that there nevertheless remains a live case or controversy in the Amended Complaint. However, the issue of whether the entire case is now moot is not currently before the Court, and the Court declines to address it prematurely. Should the Eighth Circuit remand this matter to this Court so it can grant a motion to dissolve the Injunction, nothing will prevent Defendants from then arguing that the entire case should be dismissed on mootness grounds as well. The Court will cross that bridge when it comes to it. But the tension in Plaintiffs’ position on these issues does not preclude a finding that the end of OMS has rendered the January 16 Injunction moot….
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Indicative Ruling Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 (Dkt. 237) is GRANTED.
2. Pursuant to Rule 62.1, the Court indicates that it would grant a motion to dissolve the January 16, 2026 Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 85) as moot if the Court of Appeals remands for that purpose….
The injunction is at an end, but the case continues in the trial courts — and the Eighth Circuit appeal is going to be dismissed, as the DHS/ICE appeal is now of a non-existent injunction. Got that? Cool.
To be clear, among other things, the plaintiffs are still owed damages for ICE’s past violation of their free speech and assembly rights — as well as the right to orders against any additional lawless ICE/DHS sweep operations, aimed at the same protesters/detainees (sans warrants).
Onward.
नमस्ते
Powerline Lies... 