Why It Matters
Minnesota is taking its most aggressive legal step yet to hold federal immigration agents accountable for a series of shootings that left two U.S. citizens dead and a third person wounded. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., centers on whether state prosecutors can compel the federal government to hand over critical evidence in active criminal investigations — a question with sweeping implications for oversight of federal law enforcement and the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
The case directly affects the families of those killed and wounded during Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement campaign that unfolded in the Minneapolis area in early 2025. Without access to physical evidence including weapons, vehicles, and the identities of the agents involved, Minnesota prosecutors argue they cannot carry out thorough and impartial investigations into the deaths.
What Happened
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announced the lawsuit on March 24, 2026, at a news conference in the state. The legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit names Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — who has since been replaced by U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin — as defendants. The state of Minnesota, Moriarty, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans are listed as plaintiffs.
The suit seeks access to three categories of evidence the federal government has refused to provide: the vehicle in which Renee Good was killed on January 7, the names of the agents who fatally shot Alex Pretti on January 24, and the firearms used in all three shooting incidents, including the wounding of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis.
Ellison described the federal government’s posture as “unique, rare and simply cannot be tolerated,” noting that cooperation between federal and state law enforcement in criminal investigations is standard practice. Moriarty added that the federal government appears to be actively hiding evidence and obstructing the state’s investigations.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is the state agency that typically investigates officer-involved shootings, was present at the scene of the shootings involving Good and Sosa-Celis and has been leading the state’s investigative efforts. The lawsuit was filed with pro bono legal assistance from the Washington Litigation Group and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School.
By the Numbers
- 3 people were shot by federal immigration agents during Operation Metro Surge, including two U.S. citizens who were killed
- 2 fatal shootings — Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24 — are at the center of the evidence dispute
- 1 additional victim, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, survived a gunshot wound and is also part of the ongoing investigation
- 3 federal defendants named in the lawsuit: the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and named cabinet officials
- The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., marking the most legally aggressive action taken by Minnesota officials since the shootings occurred earlier in 2026
Zoom Out
Minnesota’s lawsuit comes amid a broader national debate over federal immigration enforcement operations and the accountability mechanisms available to state and local governments when federal agents are involved in use-of-force incidents. Operation Metro Surge was one of several large-scale federal immigration enforcement campaigns conducted in major metropolitan areas, and it has drawn significant scrutiny due to the deaths of U.S. citizens.
The legal question at the center of this case — whether a state can sue the federal government to obtain evidence for a criminal investigation — has little established precedent. Legal experts have described it as uncharted territory, meaning the outcome could set a significant benchmark for how state and federal law enforcement authorities interact in future cases involving federal agents.
Other states facing similar conflicts over federal enforcement actions have generally relied on political negotiations rather than litigation to resolve evidence disputes, making Minnesota’s approach notably distinct.
What’s Next
The case will now proceed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a federal judge will determine whether Minnesota has legal standing to compel the federal government to produce the requested evidence. The court’s initial review could result in preliminary hearings or motions practice over jurisdiction before any ruling on the merits.
Ellison and Moriarty indicated they are prepared to continue pressing the case regardless of the legal complexity. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s investigations into all three shootings remain ongoing, and state officials have said that access to the withheld evidence is necessary before those investigations can be completed.