Federal immigration enforcement has escalated dramatically in the cold streets of Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul over the past few months, with agents arresting thousands of people, including some U.S. citizens, in neighborhoods, malls, schools and at protests.
The surge, a result of the Trump administration’s pledge to crack down on immigration, has been largely concentrated in Democratic-led cities and comes after weeks of growing tensions between the federal government and local officials in the Midwest who have long pleaded for an end to the operations.
Illinois and Minnesota, along with their city counterparts, are currently taking separate legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits in federal court on Monday alleging illegal and unconstitutional immigration enforcement.
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 viewed as prejudgment.”
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said the lawsuit raised “some cutting-edge issues in the Constitution.” No hearing has been scheduled in Illinois.
One expert said the prospects for both lawsuits appeared bleak, with little chance of success.
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, has been closely following the unrest in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits, and what’s next in court.
Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking of judges in lawsuits?
Honig: Essentially, both states are asking a federal judge to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration laws in their states and cities. There are differences between them, but this is the core requirement. As a fallback, both states are asking the courts to make some kind of ruling or declaration that certain tactics used by ICE are unconstitutional.
CNN: What are the main differences between these lawsuits?
Honig: The main difference is that Illinois requires that all ICE activity be blocked in the state, while Minnesota frames its request as an attempt to stop a “surge” of police officers. But pointing out the surge is legally irrelevant because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents that already existed or agents added after a certain point in time, the basic requirements remain the same. You are still asking a judge to prevent ICE from doing what it deems appropriate for your state.
CNN: Is there any legal precedent for such a request?
Honig: There isn’t any. There are no examples, and neither state cites in its filings, instances in which a judge has barred federal law enforcement officers from enforcing federal law in a specific state. The response we’ve heard from multiple Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when faced with the lack of precedent and case law, is basically, “Well, this is really bad. Well, this is an intrusion.” There’s a lot of dramatic language in the complaint, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent, no legal backing, and say, “Well, yeah, but our situation is really, really bad, so we have to invent new laws.”
CNN: How strong do you think the states’ arguments are?
Honig: I think the argument made by both states that ICE should be blocked, whether it’s a complete blockade or just a surge, is almost entirely baseless. Fundamentally, their claims are completely unfounded in law.
CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome of each lawsuit?
Honig: This relies too much on the judge. But I think the best, realistic scenario for the states is – if they have a sympathetic judge who decides to let ICE go through its paces – maybe they will call ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officers as witnesses, to investigate ICE’s training, policies, and tactics and make some sort of statement that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some kind of window dressing like this is probably the best realistic outcome. A judge would never say, “ICE, I hereby prevent you from conducting law enforcement activities.” If the judge did, the verdict would be overturned.
CNN: What are the legal principles on the other side?
Honig: The first is the Supremacy Clause, which states that state and local authorities cannot prevent the federal government from carrying out its federal responsibilities. There is also Article 2, which gives the federal executive branch the power to enforce federal laws. These are the legal theories that really come into play.
CNN: What if a state’s chance of winning is close to zero?
Honig: I’m not saying there’s nothing to do. This is not a solution to ICE abuses or excesses. They can sue if a person’s rights were violated, if a search was illegal, if a person was wrongfully detained, if a person was wrongfully injured or killed by ICE. They can go to court and seek specific remedies for their specific injuries. What the Court should not do is, first, prohibit the federal executive from exercising federal executive prerogatives, and second, make sweeping doctrinal advisory rulings on how the world should or should not look. Cases need to involve specific injuries and specific remedies, but these lawsuits do not.
CNN: Illinois and Chicago file suit The Trump administration implemented federalization in October 2025 and attempted to deploy the Illinois National Guard, arguing in part that this violated the 10th Amendment. nation In that case it was successful Trump has largely given up on deploying National Guard troops there. What are the major differences in immigration enforcement between that case and this case?
Honig: The National Guard is a completely different case, and Trump used a specific law (Section 12406) to deploy the National Guard. The Supreme Court has given a very specific and nuanced definition of the term “regular forces” and whether that means regular law enforcement forces or regular military forces. The case is therefore based on Trump’s actions under a specific federal statute that the Supreme Court interpreted and defined against the Trump administration. Legally, it’s nothing like what we have here.
CNN: Illinois and Minnesota filed lawsuits on Monday; the latter also filed a request for a temporary restraining order. What happens now?
Honig: One of two things. First, a judge can reject these out of hand. I think this is unlikely. I think the judge wanted to hear further submissions from the parties. A judge may decide to have a fact-finding hearing, and they may decide, “I want to get a deeper understanding of what ICE is doing.” That’s entirely within the broad discretion of these district court judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge said, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go in that state, you can’t go in that city,” I think that would be reversed very quickly.
CNN: Do we have a timeline for predicting how quickly judges will act on these lawsuits?
Honig: Judges are responsible for their own dockets and calendars. I think the judge will understand that these are fairly pressing and urgent issues and will want to have both sides in court within days rather than months.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com
