CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig delivered a blunt reality check to Democrats this week, warning that state-led lawsuits targeting President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations are legally weak and function more as political statements than viable court actions.
The deep blue state of Minnesota, joined by the Democrat-controlled cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, has filed suit against the Trump administration, accusing federal authorities of staging a so-called “federal invasion” through stepped-up ICE enforcement.
Similar lawsuits were filed this week by Democrat-led Illinois and the city of Chicago.
But speaking Tuesday on CNN News Central, Honig made clear he was unconvinced.
“No, I don’t,” Honig said when asked whether the lawsuits had legal merit.
“I’ve read both the Minnesota and Illinois lawsuits.
“They’re really political diatribes masquerading as lawsuits.”
Honig explained that the central demand in the filings, effectively barring ICE from operating in certain states and cities, has no legal foundation.
“That’s the top thing both states ask to do, and they cite zero precedent for that,” he said.
“There is no way a judge can say, ‘You, federal law enforcement agency, you are not allowed to execute federal law in a certain state or city.’”
According to Honig, the best-case scenario for the plaintiffs would be a sympathetic judge issuing symbolic or procedural rulings rather than granting the sweeping relief Democrats are seeking.
“You also could have judges that issue sort of symbolic orders along the lines of, ‘ICE, you are not to violate the law,’” he noted.
“But that’s already the case.”
Honig emphasized that even if every allegation in the lawsuits were accepted as true, they would still fail to justify the remedies being demanded.
“These lawsuits, which appear to be coordinated, are potentially powerful political statements,” he said. “But I don’t give them much of a chance of achieving the legal thing that they’re asking for in the courts.”
When pressed on Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s repeated use of the term “federal invasion,” Honig dismissed the argument outright.
“There is no legalese to that,” he said.
“It’s a powerful rhetorical term, but even if everything alleged were true, it doesn’t necessarily give them a constitutional legal remedy.”
Honig pointed to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a decisive obstacle to the states’ claims.
“If a judge were to say to ICE, ‘You can’t enforce the law in Minnesota or Illinois,’ it would violate the Supremacy Clause,” he explained.
“The federal government gets to carry out federal priorities, and the states cannot stop them.”
WATCH:
Minnesota’s lawsuit names Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, along with senior DHS, ICE, and Customs and Border Protection officials, including Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino.
At a Monday press conference, Ellison accused the Trump administration of unlawfully targeting Minnesota and demanded an end to what he characterized as an unprecedented federal deployment.
But Honig’s assessment undercuts that narrative, reinforcing the Trump administration’s position that ICE is carrying out lawful federal duties that states have no authority to block.
As the lawsuits move forward, Honig’s warning underscores a growing divide between legal reality and political messaging, one that may leave Democrat officials with headlines but little success in court.
READ MORE – ICE Releases ‘Disturbing List’ of Illegal Aliens After 1500 Arrested in Minnesota
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.