Why this legal expert says the Minnesota and Illinois immigration lawsuits ‘are close to completely meritless’

By Danya Gainor, CNN

(CNN) — Over the last several months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement along their chilly streets, with agents arresting thousands – including some US citizens – in neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools and at protests.

The surge is the result of the Trump administration’s commitment to cracking down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and follows weeks of growing tensions between the federal government and local Midwestern officials who have long implored for an end to the operations.

Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their city counterparts, are now separately pursuing legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits Monday in federal courts over immigration enforcement they call unlawful and unconstitutional.

A status conference for Minnesota’s complaint is set for Wednesday morning before US District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. A hearing has not yet been scheduled in Illinois.

But the road ahead for both suits appears dim, with their likelihood for success small, one expert says.

Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, has closely followed the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s next in the courtrooms.

Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.

CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking for from judges in their lawsuits?

Honig: Fundamentally, both of these 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’s the core ask. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are unconstitutional.

CNN: What are the key differences between the lawsuits?

Honig: The main difference is that Illinois asks to block all ICE activity in the state, whereas Minnesota phrases its ask as seeking to stop this “surge” of officers. But pointing to the surge 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 ask is still the same. You’re still asking a judge to block ICE from doing its job as it sees fit in your state.

CNN: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?

Honig: None. There is no example, nor does either state cite an example in their papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’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 is plenty 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, therefore we get to invent new law.”

CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?

Honig: I think the arguments that both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either entirely or just the surge, are close to completely meritless. Fundamentally, what they’re asking for is legally completely unwarranted.

CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?

Honig: It’s 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 its paces – maybe they call in ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officials as witnesses, probe into ICE’s training, policies and tactics and issue some sort of declaration that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some sort of window dressing like that is probably the best realistic outcome. There’s no way a judge is going to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from carrying out enforcement activities.” And if a judge does do that, it’ll be reversed.

CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?

Honig: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that the 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 really are in play here.

CNN: If the states’ chances of winning are close to zero, what can be done?

Honig: I’m not saying there’s nothing to be done. This is just not the way to address any abuses or excesses by ICE. If a person has his or her rights violated, if a search is unlawful, if a person is wrongly detained, if a person is injured or killed wrongly by ICE, they can sue. They can go to court and seek specific redress for their specific injuries. What the courts are not supposed to do, first of all, is prohibit the federal executive branch from carrying out federal executive branch prerogatives and, secondly, issue blanket theoretical advisory rulings about the way the world ought to look or ought not to look. Cases need to be about specific injury and specific redress, and these lawsuits are not that.

CNN: Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration in October 2025 after it federalized and tried to deploy the Illinois National Guard, also arguing in part that it violated the 10th Amendment. The state was successful in that case and Trump has largely backed off National Guard deployment there for now. What are the key differences between that case and this one over immigration enforcement?

Honig: The National Guard was an entirely different case where Trump used a specific law, Section 12406, to deploy 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 Trump took that was based on a specific federal statute, and the Supreme Court construed and defined that statute against the Trump administration. Legally, it’s a completely different scenario from what we have here.

CNN: Illinois and Minnesota filed their suits Monday; the latter also filing a temporary restraining order request. What happens now?

Honig: One of two things. One, the judges can just reject these out of hand. I think that’s unlikely. I think the judges are going to want to hear further from the parties. The judges might decide to hold fact-finding hearings, they might decide, “I want to dig into what ICE is doing a bit.” That’s all within the broad discretion of these district court judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge is to say, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go into that state, you can’t go into that city,” I think that will get reversed real quick.

CNN: Is there a timeline we can anticipate here for how quickly the judges may act on these lawsuits?

Honig: Judges are in charge of handling their own dockets and calendars. I would assume judges would understand that these are fairly immediate and emergent issues and would want to get the parties in court within days, not months.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.