Why Minnesota and Illinois Are Using the 10th Amendment to Challenge Federal Immigration Operations

Minnesota and Illinois have filed separate lawsuits against the Trump administration, both invoking the 10th Amendment as a central legal argument to curb expanded federal immigration enforcement in their states.

The lawsuits challenge a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents that state officials say has fueled fear, protests, and violence in their cities. Both states argue the federal operations amount to unconstitutional overreach, interfering with their ability to govern and protect residents.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison says the Constitution grants states sovereign authority to safeguard the health and wellbeing of people within their borders. He argues that the presence and tactics of federal agents violate that balance of power by preventing state and local officials from carrying out their responsibilities.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker echoed that stance, saying his state intends to hold the administration accountable for what he described as unlawful tactics, unnecessary escalation, and abuses of power. Chicago, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul are also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuits.

The Trump administration maintains that the federal government has broad constitutional authority to enforce immigration law nationwide. In a statement posted to social media, the president defended ICE tactics and rejected claims of overreach.

Constitutional law experts say the lawsuits set up a direct conflict between state sovereignty and federal authority. The 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states, has historically been used in disputes over federalism. However, legal scholars note this is a novel application of the amendment.

Experts say Minnesota and Illinois are effectively arguing that immigration enforcement is being used as a political tool to retaliate against Democratic-led states and undermine local policies. The lawsuits claim the federal surge has strained local law enforcement resources and disrupted public safety efforts.

Legal analysts caution that while the argument is significant, it is unclear whether courts will accept this interpretation of the 10th Amendment. If the cases move forward, they could result in new legal precedent clarifying the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.

Credit: CNN Newsource

Explore: NBCPalmSprings.com, where we are connecting the Valley.