Minnesota is not an island – geographically or legally. That’s the firm message from the Jan. 31 decision by Judge Katherine Menendez, refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s immigration law enforcement operations in Minnesota.
The federal immigration laws apply in Minnesota just as much as in Missouri. Contrary to cynical politicians who seek to weaponize misguided individuals into fighting a phantom holy war pitting some states against the national government, Operation Metro Surge is neither unconstitutional nor a violation of states’ rights.
The federal court’s stinging rebuke appears to have quickly forced Minnesota’s governor to deliver “unprecedented cooperation“ and enable border czar Tom Homan to draw down federal agents on Feb 5. Here’s why.
Let’s start with how this case got to court. Minnesota’s politicians have been engaged in lawfare against the Trump administration, claiming that the federal government is intruding on the state’s sovereignty. They challenged the federal enforcement actions as violative of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Minnesota sought a preliminary injunction to stop Operation Metro Surge.
‘BORDER CZAR’ TOM HOMAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT HIS MISSION IN MINNEAPOLIS
Even though the court’s ruling was on a preliminary motion, the constitutional argument was effectively busted by the judge’s reasoning.
Minnesota argued that Operation Metro Surge was motivated by political animus, aimed at punishing it because it was a sanctuary state, and violated the Constitution’s equal sovereignty and anticommandeering principles.
The problem is that our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to ensure the supremacy of federal laws and the capacity of the executive branch to enforce them. In Federalist No. 44, James Madison expounded on the perils of not having such supremacy: “the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”
MINNESOTA DRAGS TRUMP’S ICE TO COURT IN EFFORT TO PAUSE IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN
Madison concluded that “no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved.”
Nowhere is the question about the preservation of the union more critical than in the matter of immigration and foreign relations. That’s why the president has such broad powers in these areas, because he needs those powers as they are “commensurate to the exigencies of the Union” and necessary to preserve a unified country under the laws.
Here, the supreme federal law is the Immigration and Naturalization Act, a statute passed by Congress. That law confers power on federal officials to undertake various enforcement actions, including detention and removal. And President Donald Trump campaigned and won an election specifically on the total abdication by the prior administration in enforcing immigration laws. Having won the election on that issue, it stood to reason that Trump would keep his promise and seek to remove illegal migrants – especially those with criminal backgrounds.
In the face of widespread fraud and diversion of federal funds to illegal migrants and the state governor’s willful refusal to prosecute them, Trump deployed federal officers to enforce the law.
Minnesota’s argument in court that Trump violated the 10th Amendment’s anticommandeering principle is nonsense. As explained by the Supreme Court in New York v. US, 505 U. S. 144, 161, “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” The purpose is to ensure political accountability, protect individual liberty and prevent the federal government from transferring the costs of enforcing a federal law on to the states.
Trump and ICE did not commandeer Minnesota state officials to enforce immigration laws. In fact, the Minnesota governor and Minneapolis mayor have both loudly proclaimed that they will not enforce immigration laws or cooperate with the federal government. They have labeled ICE agents as thugs and goons and incited resistance. Clearly, state officials are not being commandeered – the facts show the opposite: resistance.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Minnesota also claimed that ICE operations were causing it to respond and divert resources away from other purposes. This is equally nonsensical – it takes fewer resources to cooperate and help ICE in arresting criminals than it does to obstruct and resist. No one forced Minnesota to appease its voter banks and provide a freebie for those who evade immigration laws. In effect, Minnesota is telling anyone who is clever enough to violate or evade immigration law that the state’s legal machinery will protect them. That is a response and diversion of resources to protect lawbreakers – of Minnesota’s own choosing. It was not a choice forced on it by ICE.
Second, the equal sovereignty argument is unavailing. The president has discretion on the enforcement of the immigration laws just as he does in the context of other executive powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. The Supreme Court explained in US. v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 678 (2023), that under Article II, “the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’”
The deployment of ICE officers in larger numbers in Minnesota underscores the value of the discretion possessed by the president. Clearly, the fraudulent diversion of funds to illegal migrants and Minnesota’s refusal to take corrective actions warranted a more robust federal enforcement response than in other states. Equal sovereignty is not violated by the prudent exercise of discretion – it is reinforced by proportionate enforcement.
Ultimately, Democrat Gov. Tim Walz’s lawfare against the Trump administration is not a war about state sovereignty. It is a war for and on behalf of lawbreakers being fought by diverting valuable resources away from law-abiding citizens and using misguided citizens as cannon fodder. Minnesota deserves better.
