A reminder, docket following and downloadable .pdf filing copies are available online with this being the best coverage Crabgrass could find online, that way:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72132615/state-of-minnesota-v-noem/
There is a Jan 14 minutes entry:
(Text-Only) MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 1/14/2026: Status Conference.Court Reporter: Paula RichterMinneapolis Courthouse, Courtroom Telephone ConferenceTime: 8:30 a.m./9:13 a.m.Total Time: 43 MinutesAPPEARANCES:For Plaintiff(s): Brian Carter; Kristyn Anderson; Kelsey McElveenFor Defendant(s): Andrew Warden PROCEEDINGS: The Court held a status conference in this matter. The status conference was held remotely to enable counsel for the defendants to appear. The Court declined to grant an ex parte TRO without giving the Defendants an opportunity to respond to the motion for injunctive relief. The Court will treat the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and will handle it on an expedited basis. The Defendants must file a response to the Motion on or before January 19, 2026, by 6:00 CST. The Plaintiffs may file a reply memorandum on or before January 22, 2026, by 6:00 CST. The Court will determine when to hold a hearing and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary following review of the Defendants position. In addition, the Plaintiffs advised that they may seek expedited discovery regarding some of the matters at issue in this proceeding. The parties should meet and confer following January 19th to discuss this matter, and can approach the Court to address it after such a conference. The parties may also submit a Protective Order to enable the exchange of information. Ordered by Judge Katherine M. Menendez. (AJS) (Entered: 01/14/2026)
So there will be a preliminary injunction hearing, and a status conference, and the latest item is Plaintiff's letter request to file an overlength brief. As of today.
Expedited discovery would be a sound thing, and it is the Plaintiffs who suffer from delay, since the TRO request was denied so that the intrusive federal siege continues. With that the case, time is of the essence.
REMINDER: Keep track of the case from that URL given at the beginning of this post. Bookmarking it is recommended.
_________________UPDATE______________
The parallel Tincher case, which has reached a point where Defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal, is similarly tracked:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72047643/tincher-v-noem/
The item appealed is that which has been widely reported, curbing what ICE goons can do against constitutionally protected citizen tracking the ICE goons by auto, video documenting of ICE goon actions, and protesting ICE goon conduct - and with a bar against spraying poisons on citizens - all with constraints that citizen action be lawfulty conducted:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.86.0_1.pdf
Presumably court listener will continue tracking the case, on appeal.
Readers on their own should search for appeal info online, while Crabgrass will post any links it locates that appear helpful.
A reminder, the constraints on ICE goon conduct remain controlling, despite how the lawful process may be ignored on the streets by them, unless or until the Appellate Court says otherwise. Expect no further action in the District Court, except perhaps filing of notices, where, I believe, violations of the District Court Order will need to be presented in Appellate filings.
I may be wrong, but media reporting likely will follow the case and report about any court filings of or about breach of the injunction order.