Here’s what happened: in the Alex Pretti shooting case, a federal judge issued an emergency order telling the federal defendants not to destroy or alter evidence. The DOJ responded by asking the court to dissolve that order.

I’m not claiming that evidence was destroyed. I’m claiming something simpler and more testable: the government is fighting the constraint itself—the court’s preservation order—while insisting you should trust its internal processes.

The mechanics matterThe mechanics matter

The order the judge entered was ex parte (emergency, without the other side present) and it’s extremely basic: don’t destroy or alter evidence tied to the fatal shooting near 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue on January 24, 2026. You can read the TRO here.

DOJ’s opposition brief tries to make that sound unnecessary. The government says the evidence is already being preserved under agency policies, and backs that with declarations: the FBI’s Evidence Response Team collected and stored evidence in a secure room; CBP preserved body-worn camera footage and says it will retain it for 75 years; ICE says it has strict documentation and retention rules.

Then comes the tell: they argue the state and county plaintiffs can’t show irreparable harm because they’re “already preserving” everything, and they frame the state’s motion as speculation. They also argue the legal theory doesn’t work—the Tenth Amendment doesn’t give Minnesota the right to “dictate” federal evidence-preservation procedures, especially in an immigration enforcement incident. They invoke immigration preemption and the Supremacy Clause.

The question isn’t “who’s right”The question isn’t “who’s right”

The frame isn’t “who’s right” in the abstract. It’s: what’s the minimum accountability architecture you want after a fatal shooting by federal agents? If the answer is “a neutral chain-of-custody constraint,” the move to dissolve the preservation order is the opposite direction.

A fair counterpoint is that agencies do have retention policies, and courts shouldn’t micromanage investigations. Sure. But a preservation order isn’t micromanagement. It’s the court saying: don’t let the evidence lifecycle depend on the same actors whose conduct is under scrutiny. And that’s why “we already have policies” doesn’t fully answer the question, because the dispute here is not “do policies exist,” it’s “do we accept a court-enforced constraint anyway?”

A falsification testA falsification test

If you want an evidence-based way to think about it, here’s a falsification test: if DOJ truly believes there’s no risk and the order is purely redundant, why spend legal capital trying to vacate it instead of stipulating to preservation and moving on?

Question for SN: In cases like this, what’s the right default: internal preservation policies, or court-supervised preservation, and what facts would make you switch your answer?

ReceiptsReceipts

• DOJ filing: “Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (Jan. 26, 2026) — asks court to dissolve/vacate the evidence-preservation TRO; claims agencies already preserving evidence.
• The TRO itself (Jan. 24, 2026): enjoins defendants from destroying or altering evidence related to the fatal shooting.
• Case page with the broader docket context + links to the Minnesota/County filings requesting the preservation order.