The Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota has raised unprecedented constitutional issues, with the state of Minnesota seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the operation. The federal government has sent approximately 3,000 immigration agents to the state, prompting allegations that it amounts to an unconstitutional occupation on 10th Amendment grounds.
Minnesota attorneys argue that the federal government is intruding on a sphere of state power known as the police power, violating the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The state claims this is an unprecedented and untested claim under the equal sovereignty principle, which holds that states must be treated equally by the federal government. Additionally, Minnesota has raised First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims.
However, experts argue that the 10th Amendment arguments are novel and unlikely to succeed. The most established doctrine under the 10th Amendment is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from using state officers as puppets. Minnesota's claim is that the federal agents' presence in the state amounts to an unconstitutional occupation, but this deviates from the traditional understanding of core state powers.
The Trump administration has dismissed the state's legal theory, arguing that President Trump is acting within his authority. This echoes a mid-20th-century strand of cases where the Supreme Court considered whether federal actions violated a state's core powers, such as where to place the state capital or control over natural resources.
However, in the 1985 case Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the court overturned itself and ruled that federal courts cannot define what constitutes a core state power due to its "political" nature. Experts believe this doctrine is too open-ended for Minnesota's argument to gain traction.
The potential repercussions of the judge's ruling are significant. If the court upholds Minnesota's claims, it could set a precedent on how far the federal government can extend its authority under the 10th Amendment. The state has already filed separate claims in Tincher v. Noem that may not be directly affected by this case.
The equal sovereignty principle invoked by Minnesota is also noteworthy. Articulated in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, it holds that states should not be treated differently by the federal government under certain circumstances. However, this doctrine has not been well-developed since Shelby County and its application here may be seen as a stretch.
In conclusion, the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota presents unprecedented constitutional challenges. The state's claims rely on novel interpretations of the 10th Amendment, which experts consider unlikely to succeed due to their untested nature.
Minnesota attorneys argue that the federal government is intruding on a sphere of state power known as the police power, violating the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. The state claims this is an unprecedented and untested claim under the equal sovereignty principle, which holds that states must be treated equally by the federal government. Additionally, Minnesota has raised First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims.
However, experts argue that the 10th Amendment arguments are novel and unlikely to succeed. The most established doctrine under the 10th Amendment is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from using state officers as puppets. Minnesota's claim is that the federal agents' presence in the state amounts to an unconstitutional occupation, but this deviates from the traditional understanding of core state powers.
The Trump administration has dismissed the state's legal theory, arguing that President Trump is acting within his authority. This echoes a mid-20th-century strand of cases where the Supreme Court considered whether federal actions violated a state's core powers, such as where to place the state capital or control over natural resources.
However, in the 1985 case Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the court overturned itself and ruled that federal courts cannot define what constitutes a core state power due to its "political" nature. Experts believe this doctrine is too open-ended for Minnesota's argument to gain traction.
The potential repercussions of the judge's ruling are significant. If the court upholds Minnesota's claims, it could set a precedent on how far the federal government can extend its authority under the 10th Amendment. The state has already filed separate claims in Tincher v. Noem that may not be directly affected by this case.
The equal sovereignty principle invoked by Minnesota is also noteworthy. Articulated in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, it holds that states should not be treated differently by the federal government under certain circumstances. However, this doctrine has not been well-developed since Shelby County and its application here may be seen as a stretch.
In conclusion, the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota presents unprecedented constitutional challenges. The state's claims rely on novel interpretations of the 10th Amendment, which experts consider unlikely to succeed due to their untested nature.
. Like, I get it, immigration enforcement is a big deal, but does the federal government really need to send 3k agents to Minnesota? It feels like they're trying to exert control over the entire state, which isn't exactly what the 10th Amendment is about.
.
.
and the state is pushing back like this. stats show us: in 2020, there were over 500k detentions under Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy 
. meanwhile, Minnesota has a population of just 5.7m people 
, which is roughly 1% of the US total 
. on the other hand, the federal government's " police power" doctrine is basically being used as a tool to expand its authority 
.
here are some key numbers: since 2017, over $25b has been allocated for border security under Trump's orders 
. in contrast, states like MN spend around $1.4b on law enforcement per year 
. it's gonna be interesting to see how the courts weigh these competing interests 
.
. but let's not forget that the 10th Amendment doctrine is super nuanced 
and there are many gray areas to navigate. fingers crossed 
. But, on the other hand, I can see why Minnesota would be all up in arms about it. The 10th Amendment stuff sounds legit, but at the same time, I'm not so sure it'll fly. I mean, this anti-commandeering doctrine is pretty well-established, and if the court sides with Minnesota's argument, that could open up some big precedents 
. And what if the court does rule in Minnesota's favor? That could be some big news 
. But, at the same time, experts are saying this argument is all pretty unlikely, so I'm not getting too hyped about it just yet 
.
the idea of states havin' equal sovereignty is pretty cool tho 
and i love how minnesota is standin' up for itself on this one 
but like, experts think they might be stretchin' it a bit too far 
This whole thing is super crazy! I mean, the feds sending 3000 agents to MN without consulting the state government? That's like a giant power play right there. But at the same time, can you blame them for being concerned about the 10th Amendment? It's one thing to have some flexibility in law enforcement, but this seems way too aggressive.
, sending in 3000+ immigration agents to MN and now the state is trying to stop them - big deal? The federal gov should be able to enforce immigration laws within their own territory, right? I think Minnesota's idea of using the 10th Amendment as an excuse for an "unconstitutional occupation" is a bit of a stretch 
. They're basically saying the feds can't do what they want in MN without the state's permission - sounds like some kind of federalism fail to me 
.
.
. The state's 10th Amendment claims are kinda like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded; they're novel, but might not quite fit together just yet 
), but on the other hand, if the feds are gonna show up with guns blazing... that's a whole different story 
. Can't wait for this court case drama to unfold – it'll be like watching a real-life soap opera, minus the soapy part 
!
like what even is an occupation? 3000 agents just swooping in and taking over the state? that's not how it works 
. The feds are doing what they want and the state is trying to stop them, but I don't know who wins here 
the trump admin is all like "hey im doing whats best for this country" and im over here like "wait isnt that a bit suspicious?" 
cant wait to see how this whole thing plays out tho! 
lol but seriously, i think minnesota has a legit shot at this one. all these experts talking about core state powers and the 10th amendment being too open-ended for them to apply it here might be just a bunch of bs 
. It's wild that they're going up against the Trump admin like this, but I gotta wonder if it's gonna be a David vs Goliath situation 
. If Minnesota wins, it could set a major precedent and we might see more states taking a stand like this in the future 
.