Over the past several months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement along their cold streets, with agents arresting thousands – including some US citizens – in neighborhoods, malls, schools and during protests.
The increase is the result of the Trump administration’s commitment to crack down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and follows weeks of escalating tensions between the federal government and local Midwestern officials who have been calling for an end to the operations.
Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their city counterparts, are now pursuing separate legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits Monday in federal courts over what they call illegal and unconstitutional immigration enforcement.
A status conference for the Minnesota complaint is set for Wednesday morning before US District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. A hearing has not yet been scheduled in Illinois.
But the path forward for both suits looks bleak, with their likelihood of success slim, says one expert.
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, closely followed the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the cases, their merits and what’s next in court.
Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.
CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking the judges in their cases?
Honig: Basically, these two 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 core asking. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some kind of decision or declaration that some of the tactics that ICE is using are unconstitutional.
CNN: What are the main differences between the lawsuits?
Honig: The main difference is that Illinois asks to block all ICE activity in the state, while the phrases of Minnesota ask to seek to stop this “increase” of officers. But pointing to the addition is legally irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents who are already there, or who were added after some point, the fundamental claim is still the same. You are still asking a judge to block ICE from doing its job as it sees fit in your state.
CNN: What’s the legal precedent for a claim like that?
Honig: Nothing. There is no example, nor does any state cite an example in their documents, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a particular state. The reaction we’ve heard from several 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 is a lot of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, so we have to invent a new law.”
CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?
Honig: I think that the arguments that the two states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either completely or only the increase, are close to completely without merit. Fundamentally, what they are asking for is legally completely unjustified.
CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?
Honig: It is so dependent on 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 it – maybe they call ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officers as witnesses, question ICE training, policies and tactics and come up with some kind of statement that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some kind of window dressing like that is probably the best realistic outcome. There is no way a judge is going to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from conducting enforcement activities.” And if a judge does that, it will be reversed.
CNN: What are the legal principles involved here on the other side?
Honig: First, is the Supremacy Clause, which states that state and local authorities cannot 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. Those are the legal theories that are really at play here.
CNN: If states’ chances of winning are close to zero, what can be done?
Honig: I am not saying there is nothing to be done. This is not the only way to address any abuse 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 a specific remedy for their specific injuries. What the courts should not do, first, is prohibit the federal executive branch from exercising federal executive branch prerogatives and, second, issue general theoretical advisory rulings about the way the world should or should not look. Cases must be about a specific injury and a specific remedy, and these cases are not like that.
CNN: Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration in October 2025 after it federalized and tried to use the Illinois National Guard, also arguing in part that it violated the 10th Amendment. The state it was successful in that case 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 on immigration enforcement?
Honig: The National Guard was a completely different case where Trump used a specific law, Section 12406, to use the National Guard. The Supreme Court offered a very specific and nuanced definition of the term “regular forces,” and whether that meant regular law enforcement forces, or regular military forces. So that case was based on the action that Trump took that 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 their suits Monday; the latter also presents a request for a temporary restraining order. What happens now?
Honig: One of two things. One, judges can only reject these out of hand. I think it is unlikely. I think the judges will 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 a little bit.” All of that is within the broad discretion of these district court judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge were to say, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go in that state, you can’t go in that city,” I think that’s going to backfire pretty quickly.
CNN: Is there a timeline that we can anticipate here for how quickly the judges can act on these cases?
Honig: Judges are in charge of managing their own papers and calendars. I assume that the judges understand that these are fairly immediate and emergent matters and will want to bring the parties to court within days, not months.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com