In the past several months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic increase in federal immigration enforcement on their cold streets, with agents arresting thousands — including some U.S. citizens — in neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools and at protests.
The increase is the result of the Trump administration’s commitment to crack down on immigration, a focus on Democratic-led cities, and follows growing tensions between the federal government and local Midwestern officials who have long pleaded for an end to the operation.
Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their city counterparts, are now taking separate legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits in federal court on Monday that they call illegal and unconstitutional immigration enforcement.
A status conference for Minnesota’s complaint is scheduled for Wednesday morning before U.S. District Judge Catherine M. Menendez. A hearing in Illinois has not yet been scheduled.
But the road ahead for both suits looks bleak, with little chance of their success, one expert says.
Eli Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, has been closely following the upheaval in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s in the courtroom.
Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking from judges in their cases?
Hon: Basically, both of these states are asking federal judges to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration laws in their states and cities. There are differences between them, but that is the main question. As backup, both states ask the courts for some kind of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are unconstitutional.
CNN: What are the main differences between the issues?
Hon: The main difference is that Illinois requests a halt to all ICE activity in the state, while Minnesota asks as it seeks to halt this “increase” of officers. But pointing to the increase is legally irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents who were already there, or who were added at some point later, the basic question is still the same. You are still asking a judge to stop ICE from doing what they see fit in your state.
CNN: What is the legal precedent for such a question?
Hon: None. There is no precedent, nor has the state cited precedent in its papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The responses we’ve heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case law, have essentially been, “Well, that’s really bad, but it’s an assault.” There is a lot of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculation. You can’t just take a situation with no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yeah, but our situation is really, really bad, so we can invent a new law.”
CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the state’s argument is?
Hon: I think that the arguments that both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either completely or only incrementally, are close to being completely meritorious. Fundamentally, what they are asking for is completely unfair legally.
CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?
Hon: It is up to 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 ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officers as witnesses, examine ICE’s training, policies and tactics and ICE needs to do things differently or issue some kind of announcement. Such type of window dressing is probably the best realistic result. There is no way that a judge is going to say, “I forbid you, ICE, from doing enforcement activities.” And if the judge does that, it will be reversed.
CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?
Hon: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that state and local authorities cannot prevent the feds from fulfilling their federal duties. and Article Two, which gives the federal executive branch the power to enforce federal laws. Those are the legal principles that are really at play here.
CNN: If states’ chances of winning are close to zero, what can be done?
Hon: I’m not saying that I don’t have to do anything. This is not a way to address any abuses or excesses by ICE. If a person’s rights are violated, if a search is illegal, if a person is wrongfully detained, if a person is wrongfully injured or killed by ICE, they can sue. They can go to court and seek specific remedies for their specific injuries. What courts should not do is, first, prevent the federal executive branch from exercising federal executive branch prerogatives and, second, issue blanket doctrinal advisory rules about what the world should or should not see. Cases need to be about specific injuries and specific redress, and these cases are not.
CNN: Illinois and Chicago filed suit After the Trump administration attempted to federalize and deploy the Illinois National Guard in October 2025, arguing in part that it violated the 10th Amendment. State In that case it was successful And Trump has largely supported the deployment of the National Guard there for now. What are the main differences between that case and this one in immigration enforcement?
Hon: The National Guard was a very different case where Trump used a special law, Section 12406, to deploy the National Guard. The Supreme Court has offered a very specific and nuanced definition of the term “regular forces”, and it means regular law enforcement forces, or regular military forces. So that case was based on an action taken by Trump that was based on a specific federal law, and the Supreme Court constructed and defined that law against the Trump administration. Legally, it’s a completely different scenario than what we have here.
CNN: Illinois and Minnesota filed their lawsuits Monday; The latter is also filing a request for a temporary restraining order. What happens now?
Hon: One of two things. One, judges can reject it out of hand. I think it is impossible. I think judges want to hear more from the parties. Judges can decide to hold fact-finding hearings, they can decide, “I want to go into what ICE is doing.” All of this is within the broad discretion of district court judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge says, “ICE, you can’t go there, you can’t go to that state, you can’t go to that city,” I think that would actually be overturned.
CNN: Is there a timeline we can estimate here for how quickly the judges might act on these cases?
Hon: Judges are responsible for handling their own dockets and calendars. I believe that judges will understand that these are very urgent and emergency cases and want to bring the parties to court within days, not months.
Create an account at CNN.com for more CNN news and newsletters
