Federal immigration enforcement in Chicago, Minneapolis, and St. Paul has increased over several months, leading to thousands of arrests, including some U.S. citizens. This activity is part of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts, occurring in cities led by Democrats. This follows tensions between the federal government and local Midwestern officials.
Illinois and Minnesota, along with their respective cities, filed separate lawsuits in federal courts on Monday against the administration. The lawsuits challenge federal immigration enforcement, alleging it is unlawful and unconstitutional.
A status conference for Minnesota's complaint is scheduled for Wednesday morning before US District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. A hearing for Illinois's lawsuit has not yet been scheduled.
According to legal expert Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, the likelihood of success for both lawsuits appears small. Honig provided analysis on the lawsuits:
Lawsuit Demands
- Both Illinois and Minnesota are seeking federal court orders to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from enforcing immigration law within their states and cities.
- As a secondary request, both states are asking for a ruling or declaration that some ICE tactics are unconstitutional.
Lawsuit Differences
- Illinois's lawsuit requests a halt to all ICE activity in the state.
- Minnesota's lawsuit seeks to stop the "surge" of ICE officers.
- Honig stated that the distinction regarding a "surge" is legally irrelevant, as both lawsuits fundamentally aim to block ICE from performing its duties in the respective states.
Legal Precedent
- Honig stated that there is no legal precedent for a judge prohibiting federal law enforcement from enforcing federal law in a state.
- He noted that the states did not cite such examples in their filings.
- Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison reportedly described the situation as "really bad" and an "invasion" in response to the lack of precedent.
Strength of Arguments
- Honig assessed the states' arguments to block ICE activity as "close to completely meritless" and "legally completely unwarranted."
Anticipated Outcomes
- Honig suggested that a realistic outcome for the states might involve judges examining ICE's training, policies, and tactics.
- He stated that a judge issuing a blanket prohibition on ICE's enforcement activities is unlikely and would likely be reversed.
Counterarguments and Legal Principles
- Honig identified the Supremacy Clause (preventing states from blocking federal duties) and Article Two (granting the executive branch power to enforce federal law) as key legal principles supporting federal authority.
Alternative Actions
- Honig suggested that individuals whose rights are violated by ICE could pursue specific legal redress for their injuries.
- He clarified that courts are not typically intended to prohibit federal executive branch functions or issue broad advisory rulings.
Distinction from Prior Lawsuit
- Honig differentiated the current immigration lawsuits from a previous case where Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration in October 2025 regarding the deployment of the Illinois National Guard.
- He stated the National Guard case involved the interpretation of a specific federal statute (Section 12406) and the Supreme Court's definition of "regular forces," making it legally distinct from the current immigration enforcement challenges.
Next Steps and Potential Reversal
- Honig suggested that judges would likely hear further from the parties, potentially holding fact-finding hearings.
- He indicated that any ruling prohibiting ICE from conducting enforcement in a state or city would likely be reversed quickly.
Timeline
- Honig anticipated that judges would treat these as immediate issues, aiming to schedule court proceedings within days rather than months.