A federal judge appointed by President Trump declined Monday to compel federal investigators to preserve evidence in the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, ruling that sworn declarations from administration officials provided sufficient assurance that standard evidence protocols were being followed.
U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud rejected the lawsuit brought by Minnesota and Hennepin County, finding that while some concerns raised by state officials were "reasonable," the court record "does not justify a continuing preservation order."
Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse, was shot and killed by a Customs and Border Protection agent in Minneapolis last month during Operation Metro Surge. He was the second U.S. citizen to die at the hands of federal agents during the immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities.
As reported by The Hill, Judge Tostrud acknowledged that evidence "appears likely" to have been lost or spoiled at the scene immediately following Pretti's death. But he pinned responsibility on circumstances rather than investigator misconduct:
The federal officers' abbreviated on-scene investigation seems best understood as resulting, not from anything investigating officers did or did not do, but from a volatile situation and reasonable safety concerns.
The Trump administration submitted sworn declarations from several officials detailing strict evidence preservation policies already being followed. The judge found these sufficient to address the plaintiffs' concerns without court intervention.
Plaintiffs identify reasonable concerns regarding Defendants' ability and willingness to preserve and maintain the integrity of the evidence in their possession related to Mr. Pretti's shooting, but in my judgment, the record as it stands today largely addresses these concerns and does not justify a continuing preservation order.
The Justice Department was blunter in its court filings:
Plaintiffs base their claim on mere conjecture.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty—both Democrats—filed the lawsuit after federal officials turned local and state personnel away from the scene and declined to share evidence.
Moriarty framed the ruling as a temporary setback rather than a defeat:
We expect them to do what they have pledged to do: preserve evidence of this fatal shooting. Preservation was step one. Access is step two and those efforts are already well underway.
Ellison struck a similar tone, emphasizing that the decision did not resolve the underlying dispute:
Today's decision says nothing about the merits of state investigators' need to access the evidence and does not block them from seeking additional relief related to evidence-destruction in the future.
Judge Tostrud has yet to decide whether evidence must ultimately be turned over to state investigators.
The ruling marks the second recent courtroom loss for Ellison. Days earlier, another federal judge refused his separate bid to immediately halt Operation Metro Surge entirely. The attorney general has positioned himself as a leading legal adversary to federal immigration enforcement, but the courts have so far declined to intervene on his terms.
This pattern reflects a broader dynamic playing out across the country. State-level Democratic officials have rushed to challenge federal enforcement operations through the courts, often seeking emergency injunctions or extraordinary preservation orders. Federal judges—including those appointed by presidents of both parties—have largely declined to second-guess executive branch enforcement discretion absent clear evidence of misconduct.
Pretti's death is undeniably a tragedy. But there is a difference between demanding accountability and assuming bad faith. Ellison and Moriarty filed their lawsuit before any investigation could conclude, before any evidence of wrongdoing emerged, and before the administration had any opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to proper procedures. The court found that the administration had, in fact, provided such a demonstration through sworn declarations.
The state officials' theory of the case rested on the premise that federal investigators could not be trusted to follow their own protocols—a premise the judge found unsupported by the record. Concerns were "reasonable," but conjecture is not evidence.
The question of whether state investigators will ultimately gain access to federal evidence remains unresolved. Judge Tostrud's ruling addressed only the emergency preservation motion, not the underlying dispute over evidence sharing. That fight will continue.
For now, the administration has demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that evidence protocols are being followed. Whether that assurance holds will depend on what investigators ultimately produce—and whether state officials can point to something more concrete than suspicion when they return to court.
The circumstances of Pretti's death remain largely unknown to the public. What led to the confrontation, why a CBP agent discharged his weapon, and what happened in the moments before the shooting are all questions that investigations—federal and potentially state—will need to answer.
But those answers will come through proper channels, not through court orders premised on distrust. Judge Tostrud made clear that federal investigators deserve the same presumption of good faith afforded to any law enforcement agency conducting a sensitive investigation. The administration pledged to preserve evidence. The court took them at their word.
Now the burden shifts back to the investigators to deliver on that pledge—and to the state officials to find something beyond conjecture if they want the courts to intervene.
