Minnesota’s Unconstitutional Lawsuit Against DHS Has No Legal Basis and Must Be Dismissed
The state of Minnesota is suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But do they have a case? The Constitution and over 200 years of precedent are unambiguous: Minnesota has no legal right to prevent the lawful exercise of federal immigration authority.
On January 12, 2026, following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer-involved shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison filed an expansive 80-page lawsuit targeting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Kristi Noem, and other federal officials.
The lawsuit makes numerous allegations against DHS, including that the agency’s recent immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota violate the First Amendment and Tenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights, the Administrative Procedure Act, and what the state deems the Constitution’s “equal sovereignty” principle.
Furthermore, Minnesota is demanding an end to “unconstitutional and illegal” ICE operations in their state, mandating that ICE agents remove their masks, require that ICE not conduct any immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations,” amongst other requests.
This lawsuit, and its underlying arguments, do not withstand basic constitutional and legal scrutiny:
First and foremost—though the lawsuit alleges DHS is violating numerous constitutional rights protected in the Bill of Rights—the Constitution grants, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, that the federal government alone has broad, plenary power over immigration law.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to regulate immigration—which includes the deportation of illegal aliens. The constitutional language is simple and forthright: Congress shall have the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Primary authority regarding immigration laws and their enforcement rests with the federal government. This has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court, notably in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), and Arizona v. United States (2012). In these cases, the court held that immigration control is an inherent sovereign power of the United States, vested in the political branches (Chae Chan Ping v. United States), that state laws regarding immigration are preempted where they conflict (Hines v. Davidowitz), and that the Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens (Arizona v. United States).
Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in Article VI establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” taking precedence over conflicting state laws and constitutions.
Much like the federal government’s authority over immigration, the Supremacy Clause has repeatedly been confirmed by Supreme Court precedent. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the court held that “the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; they control the constitution and laws of the respective states and cannot be controlled by them.” Similarly, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the court held that state law must yield where federal law validly exercises constitutional power.
These aren’t the only flawed arguments that Attorney General Ellison made in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also alleges that the federal government is “targeting” Minnesota due to the political make-up of the state. The reality is that ICE has field offices across the country, conducts operations in every U.S. state and territory, and the agency has repeatedly stated that they are prioritizing operations in “sanctuary cities” that prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration operations. Additionally, the Trump Administration has coordinated immigration law enforcement actions in numerous states, including Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
Perhaps the most eye-opening argument the lawsuit makes is that “the Tenth Amendment gives the State of Minnesota (…) inviolable sovereign authority to protect the health and wellbeing of all those who reside, work, or visit within their borders,” but a state’s traditional police powers do not grant license to disregard federal immigration law.
While the Minnesotan politicians may want “sovereign authority” to keep illegal aliens —including individuals with serious criminal convictions—in their state, decades of Supreme Court precedent and the United States Constitution clearly prevents them from doing so.
Minnesota’s unconstitutional lawsuit must be dismissed, and the federal government’s efforts to uphold the rule of law through immigration enforcement must continue unabated.