The State of Minnesota obtained a search warrant for DHS investigative materials, which was ignored, and then sued DHS over its investigation into the Alex Pretti killing. The District of Minnesota still applies the presumption of regularity and declines to order the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt for now on the standard for injunctive relief for lack of irreparable harm. A continuing preservation order is denied. Minn. Bureau of Apprehension v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20624 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
6. If I’m correct that Defendants are not likely to spoliate or destroy evidence related to Mr. Pretti’s shooting, it follows that Plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm caused by spoliation or destruction. If I’m wrong about that and spoliation is assumed, irreparable harm seems likely, but it is not certain. There is a threshold causation issue. If federal officials continue to refuse to cooperate with state officials, and if this case represents Plaintiffs’ only way to access the evidence but they do not prevail, then Plaintiffs’ lack of access to the evidence Defendants possess would result from their failure to succeed on the merits. Were Plaintiffs given access to the evidence in Defendants’ possession, then it seems reasonable to forecast that the spoliation or loss of any evidence likely would pose irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ investigation of the incident. Regardless, accounting for all these considerations, the potential harms associated with the possibility of spoliation or destruction do not weigh so heavily as to independently justify a continuing preservation order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. Plaintiffs question Defendants’ ability to preserve evidence, but they have not shown Defendants are incapable of “maintain[ing] the evidence sought to be preserved.” City of Wyoming, 2016 WL 6908110, at *2. The closer question is the extent to which an ongoing preservation order would burden Defendants. Id. On this question, relevant considerations point in both directions. Favoring Plaintiffs, the temporary restraining order’s terms are not meaningfully different from Defendants’ preservation policies. That seems obvious. …<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The State of Minnesota obtained a search warrant for DHS investigative materials, which was ignored, and then sued DHS over its investigation into the Alex Pretti killing. The District of Minnesota still applies the presumption of regularity and declines to … Continue reading