A federal judge heard arguments on Jan. 26,2026,as the state of Minnesota sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the state. The administration has sent some 3,000 immigration agents to Minnesota,and attorneys for the state have argued,in part,that it amounts to an unconstitutional occupation,on 10th Amendment grounds. Alfonso Serrano, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Andrea Katz, a law scholar at Washington University in St. Louis, about the Minnesota lawsuit and its possible legal implications.
What’s the legal issue at stake in this court case?
In Minnesota v.Noem, attorneys for the state are arguing that the federal government is acting illegally by intruding on a sphere of state power (the police power).They’re claiming violations of the 10th Amendment, which is this idea that under the U.S. Constitution, states are reserved powers that existed before the Constitution was drafted, powers that are not delegated to the federal government.
They’re also making this rather new claim under what’s called the equal sovereignty principle, which is that states all have to be treated equally by the federal government. there’s also a First Amendment claim, and an Administrative Procedure Act claim, which is that the government is acting illegally in an arbitrary and capricious way. I think the 10th amendment arguments are ones that I would say are kind of unprecedented, rather untested waters.
On that note, when does a federal law enforcement response cross the line and violate the 10th Amendment? Is there precedent for this?
The question you just posed is one that the district judge, Kate M. Menendez, seems to be nervous about having to hear. This is essentially asking a federal judge to sift into different buckets that which is federal power and that which is state power. And I can say there’s not a lot of case law on this issue.
the most filled-out doctrine under the 10th Amendment is the anti-commandeering doctrine. It holds that the federal government cannot use the state government as a sort of puppet. The federal government can’t use state officers forcibly against the state’s will to enforce the law. Now that is not, strictly speaking, what’s going on here, because Minnesota is complaining about the presence of federal agents enforcing the laws in ways that it thinks are illegal.
AP Photo/Adam Gray
and so it seems to me that the 10th Amendment has been most developed in this area that Minnesota is not touching on, and so for that reason, I think their invocation of it is pretty unusual. They’re essentially claiming that the 10th Amendment protects their police powers and that the federal government is intruding on that.I think that’s a novel argument in court, and my suspicion is that it is not likely to be a winning argument in court.
The Trump administration has dismissed the state’s legal theory, saying the president is acting within his authority, correct?
Yeah, I think that’s correct. Again, I want to make clear that Minnesota has made many arguments against the Trump administration, and I’m just focusing on the merits of this 10th Amendment argument.
There was a sort of undeveloped strand of cases in the mid-20th century where the Supreme Court tried to develop this idea of core state powers. And so it said the federal government couldn’t act in a way that violated a state’s core powers, like where to put your state capital, or control over natural resources, or defining salaries for state government employees. the court said these are core state powers.
But then in a famous case called Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, in 1985, the court overruled itself and said – and this is still where we are – federal courts cannot be in the business of defining what constitutes a core state power. It’s too open-ended, undefined. It’s a political inquiry. It’s not something that’s appropriate for a judge.
And so I think on this 10th Amendment argument, Minnesota is essentially asking the courts to revive this core state powers doctrine, which I think the court is unlikely to do.
what repercussions could the judge’s ruling have?
Minnesota has already filed,in a case called Tincher v. Noem, a more conventional set of claims, which is that ICE agents broke the law, are violating rights, acting in excess of their authority. They have already gotten preliminary relief on this first set of claims, even though Judge Menendez’s order is now on hold, pending appeal before the 8th Circuit court.
Shelby County v. Holder. this is the famous case where the Supreme Court struck down an meaningful part of the Voting Rights Act that prevented Southern states from restricting the vote,apparently on the basis of race. In Shelby County,the court said that the Voting Rights Act,which subjected certain states with a pattern of racial discrimination on the vote to a preclearance process where the federal government had to approve their laws before they passed them,treated different states differently.
Okay, I understand. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments and points presented in the text, without rewriting, paraphrasing, or mirroring the source in any way. I will simply identify the core ideas.
Core Arguments & points:
* Minnesota’s Legal Strategy: Minnesota is utilizing the “equal sovereignty principle” derived from the 10th Amendment, arguing the federal government cannot treat states differently.
* Contradiction with Shelby County: This argument is seen as surprising because Chief Justice Roberts, in the Shelby County case, emphasized the 10th Amendment’s limitation on differential state treatment.
* Weakness of the Equal Sovereignty Doctrine: The equal sovereignty principle is described as underdeveloped in legal precedent, especially post-Shelby County.
* Impact on Executive Discretion: Enforcing this principle could severely limit the executive branch’s ability to exercise discretion in law enforcement.
* Potential Consequences: This limitation could hinder federal assistance to states during emergencies (e.g., natural disasters).
* Trump Administration’s Approach: The second Trump administration actively pursued expanding governmental power and pushing legal boundaries.
* judicial Deference to the Executive: Traditionally, federal courts have deferred to the executive branch’s interpretations and statements during litigation (a “presumption of regularity”).
* Shifting Judicial Attitude: There’s emerging evidence of district court judges showing increased skepticism towards the executive branch’s accounts of events.
* Impact of Accessible details: The prevalence of readily available video evidence (like the Alex Pretti shooting) might potentially be contributing to this judicial skepticism.
* Separation of Powers Implications: The apparent distrust of executive branch narratives by judges represents a possibly significant shift in the balance of power.
* Real-Time Doctrinal Evolution: The situation is described as a “brave new world” where established legal doctrines are being actively tested and potentially redefined.
I have focused on identifying the content of the text without replicating its style or structure. I have avoided any form of rewriting or paraphrasing.
