Emotions ran high as council members debated whether denying liquor licenses could deter cooperation with ICE agents
On February 17, after a lengthy debate, the committee voted 7–6 to send the matter to the full Council without a recommendation.
The Committee of the Whole determines which items advance to the full Council and, if so, whether they do so with a recommendation. The full Council is scheduled to take up the issue on Thursday, February 19, at 9:30 a.m.
When we stopped watching to finish this newsletter, the debate had stretched into its fifth hour. The packed agenda was partly due to delays tied to Operation Metro Surge.
Business Fallout from ICE Controversy
The first involved Council Member Wonsley’s proposal to block the appointment of Michael Berk to the Stadium Village Special Service District Advisory Board. Berk is part of the management group for the Graduate Hotel on Washington Avenue, where ICE agents stayed and where multiple noise protests later occurred.
An internal message from Berk to hotel employees — leaked on Reddit last month — asked staff to treat ICE agents as they would any other guests. The message sparked significant backlash online, with some commenters sharply criticizing his stance.
It is unclear how much that online reaction influenced the Council’s decision. During the meeting, however, City Attorney Quinn O’Reilly cautioned members against screening advisory board appointees based on their political views. Council Member Wonsley argued that the “criminalization of protesters” had taken place and that the hotel’s management bore at least some responsibility.
Council Members Rainville, Palmisano, Vetaw, and Warren voted against blocking the appointment. Council Member Whiting abstained.
Mixing Liquor and Guns
Council Member Warren expressed frustration with the review process, saying members were “throwing confetti in the air to see what sticks to the static balloon.” She called the effort “ridiculous” and “discriminatory,” and warned the city was “shooting itself in the foot” with these types of actions.
Tensions among members were evident throughout the debate. Council Member Vetaw said, “We’re doing what Trump did to Jimmy Kimmel. We’re using what power we have to get rid of what we don’t like.” She cited the city’s prior attempt to suspend the liquor license of Merwin Liquors at North Lyndale and West Broadway after community complaints about crime associated with the business. At that time, the Council ultimately granted the license based on legal advice that the establishment had not violated city rules. Vetaw argued that disregarding similar legal guidance now would represent a shift in standards.
City Attorney Quinn O’Reilly was repeatedly asked to clarify legal questions. He noted that occupation is not a protected class under the law — a point some members interpreted as meaning businesses could legally refuse service based on someone’s employment with ICE.
Council Member Chowdhury emphasized safety concerns, referencing the presence of firearms carried by federal agents in hotel spaces where alcohol is served. One speaker testified about reports questioning ICE’s hiring and training processes, arguing that inadequate screening could increase the risk of injury. Of the ten people who testified, most described the presence of ICE as creating unsafe working conditions. Multiple representatives of Unite 17, which represents hotel employees, spoke in support of that view.
The first speaker, however, expressed concern about job security as a banquet server, warning that reduced business would mean fewer hours and lower pay. Council Member Rainville returned to that theme several times, saying hotel owners had told him that businesses were canceling future events because of uncertainty surrounding the liquor licenses. Council Member Chughtai questioned that assertion and said she wanted to verify whether events had in fact been canceled and for those stated reasons.
We are necessarily summarizing a lengthy debate. Council Member Shaffer distilled the argument for approving the licenses: “We’re sending a message that Minneapolis is not a stable environment for business.”
Supporters of the license restrictions framed their concerns primarily around safety and accountability. Opponents warned that using licensing authority in this manner could establish a precedent in which the city weighs political considerations alongside regulatory compliance. The tension between expressing community values and maintaining predictable business standards is likely to shape the final vote.
Council members appear united in their belief that ICE’s presence and tactics have harmed the city and its businesses. How to respond and what response is justified remain open questions.
I view this solely as a safety issue. The ICE agents aren’t competent to handle firearms when sober, let alone when they are drunk. I saw a video a few weeks ago of an idiotic ICE agent walking with his finger on the trigger of the gun, slipped on a patch of ice, and the gun went off. Thankfully no one died. These are not the type of people who should be allowed to get drunk with guns. Especially given the apparent “unlimited immunity” that they have from the Federal government. If the ICE agents get drunk and kill someone, the Federal government would just cover it up. Which makes it especially dangerous.