XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, misc.legal, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: pos@liberals.cobs   
      
   Over the last several months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have   
   seen a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement along   
   their chilly streets, with agents arresting thousands – including some   
   US citizens – in neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools and at   
   protests.   
      
   The surge is the result of the Trump administration’s commitment to   
   cracking down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and   
   follows weeks of growing tensions between the federal government and   
   local Midwestern officials who have long implored for an end to the   
   operations.   
      
   Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their city counterparts, are now   
   separately pursuing legal action against the administration, filing   
   lawsuits Monday in federal courts over immigration enforcement they call   
   unlawful and unconstitutional.   
      
   A judge decided not to issue a temporary restraining order in the   
   Minnesota lawsuit during a status conference Wednesday morning, but said   
   her decision “should not be considered a prejudgment.”   
      
   The lawsuit presents “somewhat frontier issues in constitutional law,”   
   US District Judge Katherine Menendez said. A hearing has not yet been   
   scheduled in Illinois.   
      
   The road ahead for both suits appears dim, with their likelihood for   
   success small, one expert says.   
      
   Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal   
   analyst, has closely followed the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin   
   Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s next   
   in the courtrooms.   
      
   Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.   
      
   CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking for from judges in their   
   lawsuits?   
      
   Honig: Fundamentally, both of these states are asking federal judges to   
   block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration law   
   in their states and cities. There are variations between them, but   
   that’s the core ask. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some   
   sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are   
   unconstitutional.   
      
   CNN: What are the key differences between the lawsuits?   
      
   Honig: The main difference is that Illinois asks to block all ICE   
   activity in the state, whereas Minnesota phrases its ask as seeking to   
   stop this “surge” of officers. But pointing to the surge is legally   
   irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents   
   who are already there, or who were added after some point, the   
   fundamental ask is still the same. You’re still asking a judge to block   
   ICE from doing its job as it sees fit in your state.   
      
   CNN: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?   
      
   Honig: None. There is no example, nor does either state cite an example   
   in their papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent   
   from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’ve   
   heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith   
   Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case   
   law, is essentially, “Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an   
   invasion.” There is plenty of dramatic language in the complaints, but   
   that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation   
   that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yes,   
   but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new   
   law.”   
      
   CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?   
      
   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. Fundamentally, what they’re asking for is legally   
   completely unwarranted.   
      
   CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?   
      
   Honig: It’s so dependent on the judge here. But I think the best,   
   realistic scenario for the states is – if they get sympathetic judges   
   who decide to put ICE through its paces – maybe they call in ICE agents   
   as witnesses, or ICE officials as witnesses, probe into ICE’s training,   
   policies and tactics and issue some sort of declaration that ICE needs   
   to do things differently or better. Some sort of window dressing like   
   that is probably the best realistic outcome. There’s no way a judge is   
   going to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from carrying out enforcement   
   activities.” And if a judge does do that, it’ll be reversed.   
      
   CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?   
      
   Honig: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that the state and   
   local authorities cannot block the feds from carrying out their federal   
   duties. And also Article Two, which gives the federal executive branch   
   the power to enforce federal law. Those are the legal theories that   
   really are in play here.   
      
   https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/us/illinois-minnesota-suing-trump-lawsuit   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)