On January 26, 2026, a federal judge heard arguments as the state of Minnesota sought a temporary restraining order to prevent a large-scale immigration enforcement operation that had been established by the Trump administration. The federal government has deployed approximately 3,000 immigration agents to the state, which the state of Minnesota believes is an unconstitutional occupation.
The question presented in this case is a radical constitutional issue: that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which reserves certain powers to the states. The case, Minnesota v. Noem, presents federal enforcement power and state sovereignty as its central questions.
What Is the Core Legal Issue Before the Court?
Minnesota’s attorneys argue that the federal government is unlawfully intruding into the state’s police powers, an area traditionally reserved to states under the Constitution. They contend that immigration enforcement, as carried out in Minnesota, crosses into territory that undermines state authority.
Their claims include alleged violations of:
- The 10th Amendment
- The equal sovereignty principle
- The First Amendment
- The Administrative Procedure Act, asserting the federal government is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner
Among these, legal experts say the 10th Amendment argument is the most controversial and the least tested in modern courts.
When Does Federal Enforcement Violate the 10th Amendment?
This question appears to be of utmost importance to U.S. District Judge Kate M. Menendez, who is dealing with a very murky legal landscape and a lack of precedent. The most developed body of 10th Amendment law is in the area of the anti-commandeering doctrine, which holds that the federal government cannot commandeer state officials or states to administer federal law against their will. However, the complaint brought by Minnesota does not fall neatly within this body of law.
Rather than alleging that the federal government is compelling the state to cooperate with it, Minnesota is complaining about the presence and activities of federal agents enforcing immigration law in a way that the state believes is unconstitutional. According to legal experts, while the anti-commandeering doctrine is well-settled, Minnesota’s claim that the federal government’s enforcement of its laws violates the state’s police powers is largely untried.
Is Minnesota’s Argument Legally Precedented?
Historically, the Supreme Court has briefly entertained the notion of “core state powers” in the middle of the 20th century, suggesting that certain activities, such as locating the capital of a state, managing natural resources, or setting the wages of state employees, were beyond the reach of federal power.
This notion was effectively repudiated in the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority in 1985, in which the Court suggested that the identification of core state powers was too amorphous and political to be judicially determinable.
This has resulted in a reluctance on the part of the courts to monitor the boundary between federal and state power in this manner. The Minnesota case effectively calls on the courts to reverse a decision that has been explicitly overturned by the Supreme Court.
How Has the Trump Administration Responded?
The Trump administration has rejected the constitutional claims made by the state of Minnesota, claiming that the president is well within his legal powers to enforce federal immigration laws. Although the state of Minnesota has raised several constitutional objections, it appears that the administration is most confident about the failure of the 10th Amendment challenge.
What Is the Equal Sovereignty Principle—and Why Is It Controversial?
One of the most surprising assertions made by the state of Minnesota is based on the equal sovereignty principle, which was derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a very important provision of the Voting Rights Act, holding that the federal government lacked the authority to give some states different treatment than others without any good reason. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the states must be treated equally under the Constitution.
However, as noted by law scholars, the principle has actually developed very little since the Shelby County ruling and has been widely criticized. Furthermore, its application to executive enforcement actions, as suggested by the state of Minnesota, would be a significant departure. This ruling could seriously undermine the executive branch’s ability to exercise discretion, which is an essential part of law enforcement. It could even hinder federal agencies from behaving differently in emergency situations, disasters, or local crises in different states.
How Could the Judge’s Ruling Affect Future Enforcement?
A more traditional lawsuit has already been filed by Minnesota in a case called Tincher v. Noem, claiming that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have violated the law and overstepped their authority. In that case, preliminary relief was granted by Judge Menendez, although it is currently stayed pending appeal in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 10th Amendment case, on the other hand, has far-reaching implications. A victory for Minnesota could fundamentally alter the relationship between the federal government and the states, and could limit the enforcement of immigration laws and perhaps other federal laws as well. Opponents of the suit argue that such a precedent could have the unintended consequence of undermining federal authority by challenging the uneven enforcement of federal laws.
