Thursday, January 15, 2026- A senior legal analyst and former prosecutor, Elie Honig, says the lawsuits brought by Minnesota and Illinois against the federal government over immigration enforcement are unlikely to succeed because they ask courts to do something that has no legal precedent.
Both states are essentially asking federal judges to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from enforcing immigration law within their borders or to halt what they describe as a “surge” of federal agents. Honig notes there is no example in U.S. law where a judge has barred federal officers from carrying out their core duties inside a state, and neither lawsuit cites any such precedent. That lack of legal foundation makes the central arguments “close to completely meritless,” in his view.
Honig explains that the constitutional principles the states cite such as claims that federal actions violate state sovereignty do not support a court order restricting federal enforcement. Federal law clearly gives the executive branch authority to enforce immigration laws, and under the Supremacy Clause, state and local governments generally cannot block federal officers from doing their jobs. Because the lawsuits seek broad injunctions rather than address specific legal injuries, they face a steep uphill battle in court.
Instead of granting sweeping relief, Honig suggests judges might at most allow fact-finding or limited hearings to explore enforcement practices, but orders that would stop federal agents from operating would very likely be reversed on appeal. He also emphasizes that individuals who believe their rights were violated by federal agents still have legal avenues such as suing over specific unlawful searches, detentions, or other actions even if the overall state and city claims falter.
0 Comments