Minnesota Law Firm Declares “Constitutional Revenge” Campaign, Vows to Sue “Every Single ICE Agent” in Explosive Standoff
A prominent Minnesota law firm has launched what it calls a “constitutional revenge” campaign, vowing in a fiery public declaration to sue every U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent operating in the state who is alleged to have violated civil rights, used excessive force, or conducted unlawful searches and seizures. The firm, Johnson & Bjornson LLP, framed the move as a direct effort to make Minneapolis the “richest city in America” through an avalanche of litigation and massive civil judgments.
The announcement, delivered in an off-script, impassioned statement by founding partner Marcus Johnson, has sent shockwaves through the city’s political and legal landscape, triggering panic within federal immigration enforcement circles and igniting a fierce national debate.
“For every unlawful door kicked in, for every assault on a citizen, for every violation of the Fourth Amendment, we are coming,” Johnson declared. “We will sue every single ICE agent, individually, who crosses that line. We will hold them personally accountable in court, and we will use every legal tool to make this community whole. If the federal government won’t police its own, we will—with civil complaints and jury verdicts. Let’s see how Minneapolis becomes the richest city in America, one constitutional judgment at a time.”
**Federal Offices in “Chaos,” Sources Say**
According to insiders familiar with the matter, the announcement triggered immediate turmoil within regional ICE offices and the Department of Homeland Security. Emergency meetings were reportedly convened, with officials “scrambling for cover” and engaging in “frantic huddles” to assess legal exposure and potential operational paralysis. The threat of personal liability for agents—being named in individual lawsuits rather than actions against the federal government—is seen as a uniquely potent tactic designed to deter aggressive enforcement.
“There is genuine panic,” a source within the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Minnesota, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed. “The prospect of waves of subpoenas, depositions of every agent involved in operations, and the discovery process has them terrified. It’s an unprecedented escalation.”
**Backlash and “Witch Hunt” Accusations Erupt**
The firm’s campaign was met with immediate condemnation from conservative commentators and immigration hardliners. Prominent MAGA-aligned voices have labeled the effort a politically motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate federal law enforcement and cripple immigration enforcement.
“This is a blatant attempt by activist lawyers to protect criminal illegal aliens and harass the brave men and women of ICE,” said a statement from a spokesperson for the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. “It’s a dangerous stunt that puts agents and public safety at risk.”
Conversely, immigrant advocacy groups and civil libertarians have hailed the move as a long-overdue counter-punch. “For years, communities have lived in fear of overreach with little recourse,” said Elena Ruiz of the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Coalition. “This is a powerful message that there will be a severe price to pay for stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution. It’s about accountability.”
**The “Secret Evidence Vault” and Coming Legal War**
Perhaps the most chilling detail for federal authorities is the firm’s allusion to what it termed “secret evidence vaults”—extensive, pre-compiled dossiers of alleged misconduct, witness testimonies, video evidence, and internal documents reportedly leaked by whistleblowers.
Johnson hinted that these vaults are the foundation for not just individual lawsuits, but a series of massive, impending class-action “bombshells” targeting systemic practices. “We have been quietly building our case for years,” he said. “What you saw today was just the declaration of war. The litigation army is already mobilized.”
Legal experts are divided on the viability and scale of such an effort. While suing federal agents individually for actions taken within their official duties is notoriously difficult due to qualified immunity, a successful claim requires proving the agent violated “clearly established” constitutional rights—a hurdle the firm claims its evidence vaults are designed to clear.
“This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy,” noted constitutional law professor Amanda Pierce of the University of Minnesota. “If they can substantiate even a fraction of their claims with solid evidence, it could lead to landmark rulings that redefine the limits of enforcement authority and, yes, result in significant financial settlements. It could also bog down ICE operations in litigation for years.”
The streets of Minneapolis are now the staging ground for a legal confrontation with national implications. As Johnson & Bjornson prepares its first wave of lawsuits and federal officials dig in for a protracted fight, one thing is clear: the battle over immigration enforcement in the heartland has just escalated into a bare-knuckled legal brawl with the Constitution itself as the primary weapon.
