Anti-ICE protesters have surrounded federal agents, Democratic leaders have denounced enforcement operations and tensions in Minneapolis have boiled over, but legal experts say none of it yet crosses the line into a constitutional breakdown or would justify the use of federal emergency powers by President Donald Trump.
Legal analysts say the unrest, while volatile, does not inhibit the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. That threshold would only be crossed if state officials themselves moved to block or materially obstruct federal agents, raising Supremacy Clause concerns.
Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, told Fox News Digital that hindering federal agents’ work, even aggressively, does not rise to that level.
“There is no general principle of law which says that anything that makes the work of federal agents more difficult in any way somehow violates the Constitution,” Somin said.
FEDS SHIFT TO TARGETED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS UNDER HOMAN
Protesters have taken to the streets of Minneapolis in recent weeks to confront immigration officers during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minnesota. During enforcement actions, protesters have at times surrounded ICE agents with shouting, whistles, filming and unruly crowds, creating a tense mix of peaceful demonstrators and coordinated agitators that has occasionally escalated into blockades or violence.
The dynamics at play have centered on two legal principles. On one hand, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law. On the other, obstruction of federal law enforcement is unlawful and could violate the supremacy clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict.
If the state were to pass laws that obstruct federal law enforcement from performing its job duties, that would trigger supremacy clause concerns, Somin said, but he noted that such conditions are not present in Minnesota.
Operation Metro Surge began in December, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The effort has led to thousands of arrests, but it has spurred resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, which fueled further public outrage. The FBI is now investigating those incidents.
Democratic state leaders, meanwhile, have widely criticized the operation and drawn blame from Republicans for exacerbating tension with their rhetoric. At one point, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz compared ICE’s presence to the Civil War.
“I mean, is this a Fort Sumter?” Walz told The Atlantic. “It’s a physical assault. It’s an armed force that’s assaulting, that’s killing my constituents, my citizens.”
Asked whether the resistant nature of Minnesota’s Democratic leaders could amount to “nullification,” Somin rejected the idea.
“Nullification is when the state officials themselves resist the enforcement of federal law. If they merely fail to help the feds against private parties, that is something that’s protected by the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment,” Somin said.
That hands-off approach has extended beyond rhetoric. Walz has welcomed a reduction in federal personnel but urged a faster drawdown, while Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has said the city would not assist with immigration enforcement.
“We were never going to agree, and we have not agreed, to enforce federal immigration law. Why? It’s not our job,” Frey said in a New York Times interview.
As state and local leaders have declined to intervene, opposition to the ICE operation has increasingly taken shape on the ground. Networks of activists have mobilized to confront and monitor federal immigration agents, activity that legal experts distinguish from unlawful, state-led obstruction.
Central to that resistance is Defend the 612, a network of private citizens that has coordinated what activists describe as “ICE watching,” using encrypted messaging apps to track enforcement activity and share information about agents’ movements, according to reporting by the conservative City Journal.
In addition to street confrontations, activists have staged protests at sensitive locations, including a disruption of a church service in St. Paul, where the pastor is also an ICE field director. Several participants, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, were arrested and charged under a federal statute typically used to protect abortion clinics and pregnancy counseling centers.
TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION VICTORY IN A MINNESOTA COURT IS A WIN FOR ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
Federal authorities have moved to arrest individuals accused of directly impeding immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced charges against 16 agitators accused of blocking agents, assaulting officers or interfering with enforcement actions, while the Justice Department also charged a Minneapolis man, a self-described Antifa member, with cyberstalking after he allegedly called for attacks on ICE and doxxed a pro-ICE individual.
Even so, legal experts stress that, so far, all the anti-ICE activity falls short of a collapse of federal authority. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said existing laws already prohibit mob violence and obstruction, adding that Minnesota’s hands-off approach has been “irresponsible” but not illegal.
The DOJ in January subpoenaed Walz, Frey and three others for information on whether they, too, conspired to interfere with ICE’s work. A DOJ spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the status of that probe.
Should unrest intensify, the Trump administration has floated the Insurrection Act, a rarely used provision that allows the president to respond to unlawful obstructions of federal authority. The president has said that while it remains an option, it is not currently necessary. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who is leading immigration operations in Minneapolis, likewise downplayed the impact of anti-ICE agitators.
“You’re not going to stop ICE. You’re not going to stop Border Patrol,” Homan said. “These roadblocks they’re putting up? It’s a joke. It’s not going to work, and it’s only going to get you arrested.”
Ilan Wurman, a Minnesota law professor, said in a podcast that while Trump “probably” could invoke the Insurrection Act, by constitutional standards a president should only call upon the military to enforce federal law as a “last resort.”
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley spelled out when the Insurrection Act could be appropriate, noting it was deferential to the president.
“The establishment of roadblocks and direct interference with the enforcement of federal laws can support such an invocation,” Turley said. “During the Civil Rights period, opposition to and obstruction of civil rights laws justified the use of military force.”
Still, Turley and others emphasize that the Minnesota protests, as intense and at times chaotic as they’ve been, do not yet meet the criteria for such drastic federal action.
“The promise of some Democratic leaders to arrest and prosecute ICE agents is likely to fail. Roadblocks to bar federal agents would also constitute obstruction and, if supported by the state, would violate the constitutional authority of the federal government,” Turley said.
