Supreme Court: Emergency Relief to Prevent Retaliation & Federal Overreach in MN

I write to urge the Court to grant emergency relief clarifying that presidential immunity does not bar injunctive or declaratory relief when executive action causes ongoing constitutional harm. In Minnesota, federal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration has escalated following political disagreement with state policy. District courts have already found a likelihood of First and Fourth Amendment violations related to protest, observation, and use of force, and issued injunctions limiting those tactics. Those protections were later stayed, leaving people exposed to conduct a court found constitutionally suspect. This situation exposes a dangerous ambiguity created by the Court’s recent presidential immunity decision. That ruling has been read to shield not only criminal liability, but also judicial restraint of ongoing executive conduct. Immunity from prosecution has never meant immunity from equitable relief when rights are being violated in real time. The consequences are immediate and severe. Two civilians have been killed during this enforcement surge. State officials report obstruction of evidence access even after judicial warrants, requiring court intervention simply to preserve evidence. If immunity blocks timely judicial restraint, constitutional rights exist only after irreversible harm occurs. I do not ask the Court to decide the merits of these cases. I ask the Court to preserve constitutional order while litigation proceeds. Specifically, I urge the Court to clarify that presidential immunity does not prevent courts from issuing or enforcing injunctions when executive action plausibly violates the First, Fourth, or Tenth Amendments, and to restore protections against retaliation and evidence obstruction during ongoing federal enforcement operations.