In the past few months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic escalation of federal immigration enforcement along their chilly streets, with agents arresting thousands — including some U.S. citizens — in neighborhoods, malls, schools and at protests.
The increase is the result of the Trump administration’s pledge to clamp down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and follows weeks of rising 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 now separately pursuing legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits in federal courts on Monday over immigration rules they call illegal and unconstitutional.
A status conference on the Minnesota complaint is set for Wednesday morning before U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. A hearing has not yet been scheduled in Illinois.
But the path forward for both suits looks dim, their likelihood of success slim, says one expert.
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and senior legal analyst for CNN, closely followed the unrest in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s next in courtrooms.
Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.
CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking of judges in their lawsuits?
Honey: Essentially, both 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 is the basic question. As a backup, both states are asking the courts for some sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE uses are unconstitutional.
CNN: What are the key differences between the lawsuits?
Honey: The main difference is that Illinois is asking to block all ICE activity in the state, while Minnesota is framing its request as trying to stop this “surplus” of officers. But pointing to growth is legally irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents who are already there or who were added after a certain point, the fundamental question is still the same. You’re still asking a judge to block ICE from doing their job as they see fit in your state.
CNN: What is the legal precedent for such a question?
Honey: None. There is no example, nor does any state cite an example in their filings, of a judge barring a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction I’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’s a lot of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yeah, but our situation is really, really bad, so we can make up a new law.”
CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?
Honey: I think the arguments both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either entirely or just incrementally, are almost completely without merit. In principle, what they are asking is completely unjustified from a legal point of view.
CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?
Honey: He is so addicted to the judge here. But I think the best realistic scenario for the states is — if they get sympathetic judges who decide to take ICE under control — they can call ICE agents as witnesses or ICE officials as witnesses, look into ICE’s training, policies and tactics, and issue some kind of statement that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some sort of showcase like this is probably the best realistic outcome. There is no way a judge can say, “I hereby prevent you, ICE, from conducting enforcement activities.” And if a judge does that, it will be reversed.
CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?
Honey: First, there’s the Supremacy Clause, which says state and local governments can’t 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. These are the legal theories that are really at play here.
CNN: If states’ chances of winning are close to zero, what can be done?
Honey: I’m not saying there’s nothing to do. This is not the way to address any abuse or excess by ICE. If a person has their rights 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 reparations for their specific injuries. What the courts should not do is, first, prohibit the federal executive branches from carrying out the prerogatives of the federal executive branch, and, second, issue general theoretical advisory judgments about how the world should or should not look. Cases must be about specific injuries and specific reparations, and these lawsuits are not.
CNN: Illinois and Chicago sued Trump administration in October 2025 after federalizing and attempting to deploy the Illinois National Guard, also arguing in part that it violated the 10th Amendment. State was successful in this case and Trump has largely supported deploying the National Guard there for now. What are the key differences between that case and this one in terms of immigration enforcement?
Honey: The National Guard was an entirely different case where Trump used a specific law, Section 12406, to deploy the National Guard. The Supreme Court has provided a very specific and nuanced definition of the term “regular forces” and whether that means regular law enforcement or regular military forces. So that case was based on the action taken by Trump, which was based on a specific federal statute, and the Supreme Court interpreted and defined that statute against the Trump administration. Legally, it’s a completely different scenario than what we have here.
CNN: Illinois and Minnesota filed lawsuits Monday; the latter also filing a request for a temporary restraining order. what is happening now
Honey: One of two things. First, judges can reject them without question. I think it’s unlikely. I think the judges will want to hear more from the parties. Judges might decide to hold fact-finding hearings, they might decide, “I want to dig a little bit into what ICE is doing.” All of this is within the broad discretion of these district judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge says, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go in that state, you can’t go in that city,” I think that will reverse very quickly.
CNN: Is there a timeline we can anticipate here for how quickly the judges can act in these lawsuits?
Honey: Judges are responsible for managing their own files and calendars. I would assume that judges would understand that these are fairly immediate and emerging issues and would want to bring the parties to court within days, not months.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com