Washington DC: In a significant escalation of tensions between Democratic-led states and the federal government, Minnesota and Illinois filed separate federal lawsuits on January 12, 2026, challenging the Trump administration’s large-scale immigration enforcement operations in their jurisdictions. The suits, announced amid widespread protests and controversy, allege that the deployments of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents violate the U.S. Constitution — particularly the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states — as well as federal law.
Background: The Surge in Enforcement Operations
The legal actions follow intensified immigration crackdowns in major cities. In Minnesota, the administration launched “Operation Metro Surge” in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul), deploying over 2,000 federal agents, with more expected. Officials justified the operation by citing allegations of fraud in state social services programs, particularly involving Somali-American communities, though state investigations reportedly found no substantial evidence to support the claims.
In Illinois, particularly Chicago, a similar effort known as “Operation Midway Blitz” has been underway since late 2025, involving ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other agencies. These operations have featured highly visible raids, street-level interrogations, and the use of crowd-control measures like tear gas.
The situation in Minnesota turned deadly on January 7, 2026, when an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, during a confrontation in south Minneapolis. Federal officials defended the shooting, stating the agent feared for his life, while critics and protesters have condemned it as excessive force. The incident sparked heated demonstrations, clashes between agents and crowds, and widespread community outrage.
Key Claims in the Lawsuits
Minnesota’s lawsuit, led by Attorney General Keith Ellison and supported by the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, describes the federal presence as a “federal invasion” of the Twin Cities. It accuses the Trump administration of:
Targeting the state for political retaliation due to its diversity, Democratic leadership, and sanctuary-like policies.
Conducting unlawful stops, racial profiling, and excessive force.
Disrupting public safety by forcing local police to manage chaos from federal actions, leading to school lockdowns and business closures.
The suit seeks an immediate injunction to halt the surge, declare it unconstitutional, and impose restrictions such as requiring agents to wear visible identification, activate body cameras, and avoid masking their faces.
Illinois’ lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Kwame Raoul and backed by Governor JB Pritzker along with the city of Chicago, targets similar tactics in “Operation Midway Blitz.” It alleges:
Unlawful arrests without warrants or probable cause.
Indiscriminate use of tear gas, chemical weapons, and other dangerous methods.
Violations of state sovereignty and interference with local policies, including Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, which limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Both states argue that the operations exceed congressional authorization for civil immigration enforcement in the interior of the U.S., especially when involving CBP agents typically focused on border duties.
Responses and Broader Implications
The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back strongly, calling the lawsuits “baseless” and emphasizing that ICE conducts targeted operations with proper procedures. A White House spokesperson described Minnesota’s suit as a “pathetic stunt” prioritizing “illegal criminals” over public safety. DHS officials insist the enforcement is necessary to uphold federal immigration law in uncooperative jurisdictions.
These lawsuits represent the latest front in the ongoing clash over immigration policy in President Trump’s second term. They highlight deep divisions, with Democratic-led states viewing the deployments as politicized overreach, while the administration frames them as essential to combating illegal immigration and related crimes.
As courts consider requests for temporary restraining orders — potentially as early as January 13, 2026 — the cases could set important precedents on federal-state relations in immigration enforcement. Protests continue in both states, with community members organizing to monitor agents and inform residents of their rights.
