Apparently, the Constitution now comes with a permission slip.
According to Minnesota’s political class—and the federal judge they are hoping will indulge them—federal immigration law is binding except when local officials find it inconvenient, uncomfortable, or politically risky. In those moments, the thinking goes, the state can simply ask a court to restrain Immigration and Customs Enforcement and call it “constitutional balance.”
Thankfully, the Trump administration is having none of it.
In a sharply worded filing this week, the Department of Justice warned that any judicial order limiting ICE operations inside Minnesota would amount to an “unprecedented overreach.” That phrasing is not hyperbole. It is the legal equivalent of asking whether we have collectively forgotten how the country works.
Because if Minnesota can veto federal immigration enforcement, then federal law is no longer federal. It’s optional. And once law becomes optional, it ceases to be law at all.
Let’s be clear about what Minnesota officials are actually demanding. They are not asking for oversight. They are not negotiating cooperation agreements. They are not challenging Congress’s authority to regulate immigration. They are asking a federal judge to block federal agents from enforcing federal law within a U.S. state because local politicians don’t like how it looks—or who it might offend.
That is not federalism. That is nullification dressed up in modern legal jargon.
The Constitution does not grant states authority over immigration. It never has. Article I explicitly empowers Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Not a regional one. Not a city-approved one. Uniform. Immigration enforcement is inseparable from national sovereignty, which is precisely why the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that it belongs to the federal government.
Minnesota officials, however, would like to pretend this is about “public safety” and “community trust.” That would be touching if it weren’t so transparently dishonest.
What they are really arguing is that federal law should be subordinate to local political preferences. And the moment a judge accepts that premise, the entire constitutional hierarchy collapses.
The Justice Department rightly points out the absurdity of the precedent being proposed. If a judge can micromanage ICE operations in Minnesota, then nothing prevents another judge from restricting IRS audits in California, ATF enforcement in Texas, or environmental enforcement in West Virginia. Federal agencies would operate not under national law, but under the ideological comfort level of whichever jurisdiction they happen to enter.
That is not how a republic functions. That is how one fractures.
And then there is the role of the judiciary itself—a role Minnesota seems eager to redefine. Judges are meant to interpret law, not rewrite it. They are not empowered to issue operational directives to federal law enforcement agencies based on political pressure, media cycles, or emotional appeals.
Once courts begin doing that, they stop being courts and start acting like shadow legislatures. The Trump administration is absolutely right to draw a hard line here, because this case is not merely about immigration—it is about whether courts will respect the separation of powers at all.
Yes, tensions are high. Yes, there have been protests. Yes, tragic incidents are being leveraged to justify sweeping legal restraints. But emotional turmoil does not grant judges authority to suspend federal statutes. If it did, law enforcement would cease to exist the moment it became controversial.
Here is where the tone must sober.
We already know what happens when immigration enforcement is functionally abandoned. Criminal networks exploit the vacuum. Human trafficking thrives. Fentanyl pours across borders. Communities suffer—not hypothetically, but measurably. And when the consequences arrive, the same officials who demanded non-enforcement suddenly feign surprise.
Going backward on immigration enforcement does not produce compassion. It produces chaos.
And the damage would not stop at immigration. If states can successfully enlist courts to restrain federal authority whenever they disagree with policy, then no federal law is safe. Tax law, drug enforcement, environmental regulation—all become subject to local veto. The rule of law becomes conditional. National sovereignty becomes theoretical.
The Constitution was designed precisely to prevent this outcome. Federal law is supreme not because Washington always gets it right, but because a nation cannot function when its laws apply only where they are popular.
ICE does not need Minnesota’s permission. Neither does the Constitution.
And if we forget that, we will not be stepping forward into justice—we will be sliding backward into disorder.