Minnesota and Illinois Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Deployments
📅 January 13, 2026
✍️ Editor: Sudhir Choudhary, The Vagabond News
WASHINGTON / MINNEAPOLIS / CHICAGO — The states of Minnesota and Illinois have filed federal lawsuits against the administration of President Donald Trump, challenging the large-scale deployment and enforcement tactics of federal immigration officers — including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel — in their jurisdictions. The legal actions, filed on Monday, represent an escalation of state-level resistance to what officials describe as unconstitutional and politically motivated federal immigration operations.
The lawsuits come amid intense national debate over immigration enforcement practices following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a Minnesota woman, by an ICE officer during a federal operation in Minneapolis earlier this month, which has sparked widespread protests and legal scrutiny.
Minnesota Challenges Federal ‘Surge’
In Minneapolis, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a complaint in federal court seeking to halt the surge of federal immigration agents that the state says has inflicted harm on communities across the Twin Cities region. The lawsuit names as defendants Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior DHS officials, arguing that the deployment violates constitutional protections and federal law.
Ellison’s office is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order to immediately curb federal activities, including the use of armed and masked agents without visible identification. The complaint alleges that the federal operation has amounted to a “federal invasion” of Minnesota, disproportionately targeting a blue state with a relatively small immigrant population and disregarding local constitutional rights.
The Minnesota suit also takes aim at specific tactics, seeking judicial limits on federal use of force, the requirement that officers wear clear identification, and restrictions on operations in sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals. Officials argue that the surge — described by DHS as part of its largest enforcement operation ever in the state — has undermined public trust and compromised community safety.
Illinois Says Enforcement Strategy Is ‘Unlawful, Dangerous’
In a parallel action, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, joined by the City of Chicago, filed a separate lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of deploying immigration agents and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in ways that violate constitutional rights and endanger residents. The Illinois complaint describes federal agents as acting “more like occupiers than law enforcement officers” and alleges aggressive tactics, including tear gas use, property trespass, and impeding civil liberties.
State officials assert that the federal operation — which includes roving patrols and ICE presence across neighborhoods — has created fear among residents and disrupted daily life. The Illinois lawsuit seeks to block civil immigration enforcement by federal agents in the state and curb what it calls “dangerous and unlawful” tactics.
Federal Response and Broader Backlash
The Trump administration has defended its enforcement measures, framing them as legitimate efforts to uphold federal immigration laws. DHS and Justice Department spokespeople have characterized the lawsuits as politically motivated and an attempt to hinder lawful immigration enforcement. The administration has also labeled Minnesota a “sanctuary state” that impedes cooperation with federal immigration efforts, a claim state officials strongly dispute.
The legal actions underscore escalating tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration policy and the scope of federal power in domestic enforcement. Governors, mayors, and state attorneys general have repeatedly criticized the surge of federal agents as excessive and counterproductive, particularly in the wake of the shooting that ignited public outrage and protests nationwide.
Legal and Political Significance
Legal experts say the outcome of the lawsuits could have far-reaching implications for federal-state relations, civil liberties, and immigration enforcement practices. Several provisions invoked in the complaints — including allegations of racial profiling, violations of due process, and unconstitutional use of force — are expected to be hotly contested in court.
The Minnesota litigation is also drawing in local city governments, which argue that federal operations have strained municipal services and public safety resources. In Illinois, leaders contend that federal immigration enforcement has eroded trust between communities and law enforcement, with potential long-term consequences for public cooperation and safety.
Looking Ahead
Both Minnesota and Illinois have scheduled preliminary hearings in federal court as they seek immediate relief from the judiciary. State leaders and civil rights advocates hope that court intervention will impose measurable limits on federal operations and lead to broader legal scrutiny of national immigration enforcement tactics.
For now, the lawsuits represent a significant escalation in the political and legal battle over immigration policy — one with potential ramifications for how federal law enforcement agencies operate in local communities across the United States.
Tags: Minnesota, Illinois, Trump Administration, ICE Deployments, Federal Lawsuits, Immigration Enforcement, Renee Good
News by The Vagabond News
