When you hear the phrase “destroying or altering evidence,” it might conjure an image of a criminal organization hell-bent on covering up its misdeeds. As it happens, a judge appointed by Donald Trump just used those words in an order against Trump administration officials and employees, temporarily barring them from taking such actions after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minnesota on Saturday.
Federal officials and their employees “are ENJOINED from destroying or altering evidence related to the fatal shooting involving federal officers that took place in or around 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, including but not limited to evidence that [federal] Defendants and those working on their behalf removed from the scene and/or evidence that Defendants have taken into their exclusive custody,” U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud wrote in his temporary restraining order Saturday. He set a hearing for Monday afternoon and said the federal government can also respond in writing ahead of time.
Tostrud, whom Trump appointed to the bench in his first term, entered the order in response to an emergency motion from state officials.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office wrote to the judge that they “have a sovereign interest in exercising their police powers and in investigating potential violations of Minnesota’s criminal laws,” and that the federal government’s “hasty removal of evidence from the scene of the [Department of Homeland Security]-involved shooting, contrary to ordinary protocols and the State’s sovereign right of parallel access to that evidence, violates that sovereign interest of the State and creates an unacceptable risk that the evidence will be permanently destroyed or altered before [state] Plaintiffs are able to litigate their right to access that evidence.”
Preserving evidence is crucial in any case, certainly in any case stemming from a fatal shooting. While the current Justice Department seems unlikely to bring criminal charges against Trump’s own troops, so to speak, a future DOJ could do so, as could state authorities, who can bring charges instead of or on top of federal charges. But in addition to the legal challenges that would arise in any state attempt to charge a federal officer, tainted evidence could hurt any case.
In the lawsuit that led to the temporary restraining order, state officials also noted the Jan. 7 shooting death of Renee Good and the subsequent federal obstruction of their investigative efforts there. They wrote that this isn’t the first time that federal officers “have committed a fatal shooting within the State’s borders during their recent unprecedented show of force.” Nor, they wrote, “is it the first time [federal] Defendants have willfully interfered with the ability of the State and its subdivisions to investigate such a fatal shooting.” State officials wrote that they “continue to investigate the fatal shooting of Good despite the federal authorities’ ongoing failure to cooperate.”
The federal government will have an opportunity to respond in court, where its lawyers won’t have free rein to lie and misdirect, as Trump officials have done in their public remarks. While the judge’s order is only temporary and therefore could change in the administration’s favor, the fact that state officials even had to contemplate seeking such an order is a damning indictment of the entire federal enterprise, which purports to be about enforcing the law (and is the subject of a separate hearing in Minnesota on Monday).
That a judge granted the order is only the latest example of the courts showing concern about the administration’s behavior.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
