Over the final a number of months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement alongside their chilly streets, with brokers arresting thousands – together with some US citizens – in neighborhoods, procuring facilities, colleges and at protests.
The surge is the results of the Trump administration’s dedication to cracking down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and follows weeks of rising tensions between the federal authorities and native Midwestern officers who’ve lengthy implored for an finish to the operations.
Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their metropolis counterparts, are actually individually pursuing legal action in opposition to the administration, submitting lawsuits Monday in federal courts over immigration enforcement they call unlawful and unconstitutional.
A decide determined not to issue a temporary restraining order in the Minnesota lawsuit throughout a standing convention Wednesday morning, however mentioned her choice “should not be considered a prejudgment.”
The lawsuit presents “somewhat frontier issues in constitutional law,” US District Judge Katherine Menendez mentioned. A listening to has not but been scheduled in Illinois.
The street forward for each fits seems dim, with their chance for fulfillment small, one expert says.
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and NCS senior legal analyst, has intently adopted the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their deserves and what’s subsequent in the courtrooms.
Some of the solutions have been edited for size and readability.
NCS: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking for from judges of their lawsuits?
Honig: Fundamentally, each of those states are asking federal judges to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from imposing immigration regulation of their states and cities. There are variations between them, however that’s the core ask. As a backup, each states ask the courts for some kind of ruling or declaration that a few of the techniques ICE is utilizing are unconstitutional.
NCS: What are the key variations between the lawsuits?
Honig: The principal distinction is that Illinois asks to block all ICE exercise in the state, whereas Minnesota phrases its ask as looking for to cease this “surge” of officers. But pointing to the surge is legally irrelevant, as a result of whether or not you’re speaking a few group of ICE brokers who’re already there, or who had been added after some level, the basic ask remains to be the identical. You’re nonetheless asking a decide to block ICE from doing its job because it sees slot in your state.
NCS: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?
Honig: None. There isn’t any instance, nor does both state cite an instance of their papers, of a decide prohibiting a federal regulation enforcement agent from imposing federal regulation in a given state. The response that we’ve heard from varied Minnesota officers, together with Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case regulation, is basically, “Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an invasion.” There is loads of dramatic language in the complaints, however that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t simply take a state of affairs that has no legal precedent and no legal assist and say, “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.”
NCS: In your opinion, how sturdy do you suppose the states’ arguments are?
Honig: I feel the arguments that each states are making, that ICE needs to be blocked, both fully or simply the surge, are close to completely meritless. Fundamentally, what they’re asking for is legally completely unwarranted.
NCS: What do you suppose is the most definitely end result for every swimsuit?
Honig: It’s so depending on the decide right here. But I feel the finest, lifelike situation for the states is – in the event that they get sympathetic judges who determine to put ICE via its paces – possibly they name in ICE brokers as witnesses, or ICE officers as witnesses, probe into ICE’s coaching, insurance policies and techniques and problem some kind of declaration that ICE wants to do issues otherwise or higher. Some kind of window dressing like that’s most likely the finest lifelike end result. There’s no means a decide goes to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from carrying out enforcement activities.” And if a decide does do this, it’ll be reversed.
NCS: What are the legal rules at play right here on the different facet?
Honig: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that the state and native authorities can’t block the feds from finishing up their federal duties. And additionally Article Two, which provides the federal government department the energy to implement federal regulation. Those are the legal theories that basically are in play right here.
NCS: If the states’ possibilities of profitable are close to zero, what will be finished?
Honig: I’m not saying there’s nothing to be finished. This is simply not the means to handle any abuses or excesses by ICE. If an individual has his or her rights violated, if a search is illegal, if an individual is wrongly detained, if an individual is injured or killed wrongly by ICE, they will sue. They can go to courtroom and search particular redress for his or her particular accidents. What the courts are usually not supposed to do, to begin with, is prohibit the federal government department from finishing up federal government department prerogatives and, secondly, problem blanket theoretical advisory rulings about the means the world ought to look or ought not to look. Cases want to be about particular harm and particular redress, and these lawsuits are usually not that.
NCS: Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration in October 2025 after it federalized and tried to deploy the Illinois National Guard, additionally arguing partly that it violated the tenth Amendment. The state was successful in that case and Trump has largely backed off National Guard deployment there for now. What are the key variations between that case and this one over immigration enforcement?
Honig: The National Guard was a completely totally different case the place Trump used a selected regulation, Section 12406, to deploy the National Guard. The Supreme Court supplied a really particular and nuanced definition of the time period “regular forces,” and whether or not that meant common regulation enforcement forces, or common army forces. So that case was primarily based on the motion Trump took that was primarily based on a selected federal statute, and the Supreme Court construed and outlined that statute in opposition to the Trump administration. Legally, it’s a completely totally different situation from what we’ve right here.
NCS: Illinois and Minnesota filed their fits Monday; the latter additionally submitting a short lived restraining order request. What occurs now?
Honig: One of two issues. One, the judges can simply reject these out of hand. I feel that’s unlikely. I feel the judges are going to need to hear farther from the events. The judges would possibly determine to maintain fact-finding hearings, they may determine, “I want to dig into what ICE is doing a bit.” That’s all inside the broad discretion of those district courtroom judges. I feel these are the subsequent steps, but when a district courtroom decide is to say, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go into that state, you can’t go into that city,” I feel that can get reversed actual fast.
NCS: Is there a timeline we will anticipate right here for a way rapidly the judges could act on these lawsuits?
Honig: Judges are in command of dealing with their very own dockets and calendars. I might assume judges would perceive that these are pretty quick and emergent points and would need to get the events in courtroom inside days, not months.