Q&A of the Day – Minnesota’s Federal Appeal to Reduce ICE Operations
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: Hey, Brian, with the Minnesota courts probably going to be, uh, putting in an injunction on ICE operations. Um, my only question is, what if Trump just says no, um, to that? I mean, realistically, There's nothing they can do, right? They don't have the authority to bar ICE operations, is that correct?
Bottom Line: Your note introduces a couple of key dynamics that are in play as constitutional law is central to the state of Minnesota’s attempt to reduce ICE operations. Your question is regarding whether Minnesota’s courts could order changes or perhaps even an end to federal law enforcement operations within the state. The answer to that question would be no, as the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution doesn’t allow a state to usurp federal authority. But that isn’t the dynamic that’s in play here.
The lawsuit filed by Minnesota against the Trump administration’s ICE activities within the state was filed in federal court – which retains the authority to issue orders that could impact federal law enforcement actions within the state. Let's break the lawsuit that was filed down.
Minnesota AG Keith Ellison sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking to reduce the level of ICE activity within Minnesota to levels that existed prior to the surge in activity that’s taken place during the month of January. Notably the surge in ICE activity within the state came on the heels of a massive multi-billion-dollar daycare scandal which involved many illegal immigrants.
Specific to the Somali fraud ring, 98 arrests have been made in direct connection to the probe, 85 of which are of Somali descent with approximately a dozen determined to be illegally inside of the country (in total over 30 Somali illegal immigrants have been arrested and detained by ICE). Following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this month, it’s easy to forget the pretext to the increase in ICE activity in the state was related to what appears to have been record fraud within the state perpetrated in part by illegal aliens.
The second surge in ICE activity within the state came following the ICE-involved death Renee Good in response to increased protesting and coordination with Marxist organizations, commonly using the Signal app to activate and obstruct ICE operations covertly.
In addition to seeking a decision ordering pre surge levels of ICE activity within Minnesota, the state is also asking for additional restrictions on ICE activity while conducting operations. The lawsuit was filed under the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez, a Biden appointee. The implications of this case are potentially wide reaching.
Last year the United States Supreme Court issued a decision barring federal district court judges from issuing “universal injunctions”, meaning that the judge’s decision would only apply to her jurisdiction, however – 19 blue states plus Washington D.C., filed what’s known as a “friend-of-the-court" brief supporting Minnesota’s lawsuit indicating intent to use a potentially favorable ruling to impair ICE operations to achieve a similar result within their states. Given that blue states are the states which are non-compliant with federal immigration law, IE sanctuary states, they’re obviously the states where it’s most important for ICE to be able to carry out the most extensive operations.
For example, in Minnesota, since January 20th of last year when President Trump took office, Minneapolis has released 470 criminal illegal immigrants with ICE detainer requests back into society with over 1,360 criminal illegal immigrants with ICE detainer requests released back into society statewide. As you’d imagine, the numbers are much larger in large states like California and New York. Over the past year New York ignored 7,113 ICE detailer requests releasing those criminal illegal immigrants back into society instead. The final numbers in California were less clear, but it appears the total was north of 10,000. The implications of what could potentially come out of the Minnesota lawsuit could obviously have wide-reaching implications.
Regardless of the outcome with the district court judge, the losing party is almost certain to appeal the outcome to a higher court. On that note, in a separate case that went before the same district court judge on the 16th, where she restricted the ability for ICE officers to detain, arrest, use pepper spray or retaliate against ICE officers without probably cause – a decision that emboldened anti-ICE activists to become more aggressive, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision Monday night – siding with ICE and the Trump administration.
On Monday President Trump announced that he was sending Border Czar Tom Homan to Minnesota to oversee ICE operations within the state, in an indication that the administration is adjusting leadership structure within the state. That’s a proactive step that could potentially impact the legal implications as well. For example, the administration could argue that they’re reevaluating tactics, chain-of-command, etc. in an effort to avoid future tragic conflicts.
Stay tuned...