Illinois and Minnesota have initiated legal action against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, which they deem unlawful and unconstitutional. The lawsuits, filed on March 15, 2024, in federal courts, reflect escalating tensions between local officials and federal authorities amid a marked increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in their major cities. These actions have led to significant arrests, including some of US citizens, in various public spaces and during protests.
The core request from both states is to prevent ICE from enforcing immigration laws within their jurisdictions. Illinois seeks to halt all ICE operations, while Minnesota aims to address what it describes as a “surge” in enforcement. A status conference for Minnesota’s case is scheduled for March 20, 2024, before US District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. No hearing date has been confirmed for Illinois as of yet.
Legal experts suggest that the path ahead for these lawsuits may be challenging. Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and current CNN senior legal analyst, has analyzed the legal standing of these cases. He notes that there is no precedent for a court blocking federal law enforcement from executing its duties in any state.
Honig explains that while both lawsuits express significant concern over the current immigration tactics, they lack legal support. “The dramatic language in the complaints does not change the legal calculus,” he stated. He emphasized that simply having a difficult situation does not justify the creation of new legal standards.
Both Illinois and Minnesota are asking for judicial intervention to block ICE’s actions, but their arguments hinge on the interpretation of legal precedents that, according to Honig, do not currently exist. The Supremacy Clause, which affirms that state and local authorities cannot obstruct federal enforcement of laws, significantly impacts the states’ chances of success. Furthermore, Article Two of the US Constitution grants the federal executive branch authority to enforce federal law.
Should the courts dismiss these lawsuits outright, it would not be surprising, according to Honig. However, it is likely that judges may choose to conduct hearings to examine the practices of ICE more closely. “The best realistic outcome for the states might be a court urging ICE to adjust its tactics, rather than a complete prohibition of their activities,” he added.
The legal landscape surrounding these cases is complex. In a previous case in October 2025, Illinois successfully challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to deploy the Illinois National Guard, arguing that it violated the 10th Amendment. Honig notes that this case centered around a specific federal law, which is notably different from the current lawsuits over immigration enforcement.
Now, as both states seek immediate relief through their legal actions, the next steps will depend on the discretion of the district court judges. They may opt for rapid hearings, recognizing the urgency of the issues at hand. The timeline for any decisions remains uncertain, but there is an understanding that judges are likely to address these cases promptly given their immediate implications for local communities.
In summary, the lawsuits filed by Illinois and Minnesota represent a significant challenge to federal immigration enforcement practices. As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcomes will likely shape the ongoing debate over immigration policy and enforcement in the United States.
