Illinois and Minnesota Challenge Federal Immigration Enforcement

In January 2026, the states of Illinois and Minnesota, along with their respective cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, initiated legal action against the Trump administration regarding federal immigration enforcement practices. This surge in enforcement has led to thousands of arrests, including U.S. citizens, in areas such as neighborhoods, shopping centers, and schools. The lawsuits, filed in federal courts, argue that the enforcement actions are unlawful and unconstitutional, seeking to block the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting operations in their jurisdictions.

CNN

The primary request from both states is for federal judges to prevent ICE from enforcing immigration laws within their borders. Illinois seeks a complete ban on ICE activities, while Minnesota aims to halt the recent increase in enforcement actions. Legal experts, however, have noted the lack of precedent for such requests, indicating that no court has previously prohibited federal law enforcement from executing federal laws in a state.

CNN

Elie Honig, a legal analyst, emphasized that the states' arguments lack substantial legal grounding. He pointed out that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government authority to enforce federal laws, which complicates the states' position. Furthermore, the lawsuits do not cite any specific instances of injury or unlawful actions by ICE that would warrant judicial intervention, which is a critical requirement for such cases.

CNN

The likelihood of success for these lawsuits appears low, according to legal analysts. While judges may choose to hold hearings to examine ICE's practices, the expectation is that they will not issue blanket prohibitions against ICE operations. Instead, a more probable outcome could involve judges calling for improvements in ICE's procedures without outright blocking enforcement activities.

CNN

Critics of the lawsuits argue that the dramatic language used by state officials does not alter the legal realities they face. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has characterized the situation as an "invasion," but legal experts maintain that emotional appeals do not create new legal precedents. The absence of legal support for the states' claims raises questions about the effectiveness of this approach to address perceived abuses by ICE.

CNN

As the legal proceedings unfold, a status conference for Minnesota's complaint is scheduled, while Illinois has yet to set a hearing date. The courts are expected to act swiftly given the urgent nature of the issues raised, but the outcomes remain uncertain. Legal experts suggest that the states may need to explore alternative avenues for addressing their concerns regarding federal immigration enforcement.

CNN

• “Honig: I think the arguments that both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either entirely or just the surge, are close to completely meritless.” — Elie Honig, Legal Analyst

CNN

• “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.” — Elie Honig, Legal Analyst

CNN

• “I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge 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 think that will get reversed real quick.” — Elie Honig, Legal Analyst

CNN

• “This is just not the way to address any abuses or excesses by ICE.” — Elie Honig, Legal Analyst

CNN