Officials in Minnesota and Illinois filed lawsuits within hours Monday seeking to curb the Trump administration’s continued immigration crackdown in those states.

Although the lawsuits are separate and nuanced, both states have cited the 10th Amendment to argue that the proliferation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents — which has sparked nationwide protests and violence and fear in urban areas — amounts to federal overreach and a violation of state sovereignty.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office believes the surge in federal employees violates the 10th Amendment, which divides powers between the state and federal governments.

“The Constitution gives the state of Minnesota the sovereign power to protect the health and welfare of all people living within its borders,” Ellison said at a Monday news conference announcing the lawsuit.

“We’re going to protect these rights because, as much as they would like to believe, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is not above the law and the people of Minnesota are never above the law.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker took his policies a step further. remarks In its lawsuit, Illinois says it will hold President Donald Trump and his administration accountable for “unlawful tactics, unnecessary escalation, and flagrant abuses of power.”

President Trump and his administration have said the Constitution gives the federal government broad authority to enforce domestic immigration laws as it sees fit.

in a long statement Posted on Truth Social On Tuesday, President Trump defended ICE tactics, declaring, “Fear not, great people of Minnesota, the day of retribution is coming!”

But constitutional experts told CNN that the two cases essentially challenge states’ autonomy and civil protection rights, as well as the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration policies within its borders.

And experts say it opens the door to new interpretations of the central amendments to the Bill of Rights.

The line between state and federal governments

Michelle Goodwin, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said understanding the significance of the Illinois and Minnesota cases begins with understanding the importance of the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment.

“The Bill of Rights was intended to protect new Americans fleeing the worst political excesses in Britain,” she said. “[It was]intended to protect individuals from government overreach and abuse of power.”

of First Amendment Establishes fundamental freedoms of speech, press, religion, and peaceful assembly. It also protects the right to petition the government, the right to formally ask the government for changes without fear of punishment, and prevents Congress from enacting laws that trample on these rights.

Goodwin said subsequent amendments would build on those protections by further enumerating people’s rights and protecting them from government overreach.

But according to Goodwin, the 10th Amendment is unique because it establishes a division of power between the states and the federal government, also known as “federalism.”

To understand this, Goodwin said it’s helpful to remember that at the time the Bill of Rights was written, states were in many ways similar to independent nations that agreed to be governed under a federal system.

Essentially, the 10th Amendment preserves states’ sovereignty to enact local laws and govern within their borders, and the federal government cannot impose its will on states unless that authority is granted by Congress or the Constitution, Goodwin said.

This gives states the ability to create, control and regulate everything from their state education systems and local police departments to election regulations and zoning laws, Goodwin said.

But more than 230 years after the Tenth Amendment was ratified, both Minnesota and Illinois argue that the proliferation of federal ICE and Border Patrol agents is preventing state and local governments from effectively governing and keeping their residents safe.

Craig Futterman, a clinical law professor at the University of Chicago, said there is no question that the federal government has the right to enforce immigration laws, but it remains to be seen whether the courts will accept Illinois and Minnesota’s interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

“In both Minnesota and Illinois, the state’s theory is that the federal government is using immigration law as a ruse to target and retaliate against (Democrat-led) states and cities, to interfere in local policy and to interfere with their sovereignty,” he said.

Minnesota alleges in its lawsuit that the administration’s “aggressive and militarized momentum has impeded the ability of state and local law enforcement to combat crime and protect the health, welfare, and safety of our residents.”

Illinois officials also allege that DHS’s “incursion” into the state and its illegal and violent tactics have disrupted people’s lives, undermined liberty and property rights, and undermined the sovereignty and property rights of Illinois and Chicago.

In addition to Chicago, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Trump administration.

In addition to violating their Tenth Amendment sovereignty, the states and cities argued in the lawsuit that the Trump administration’s actions were punitive and aimed at “coercing” state and local officials to adopt the administration’s policies.

Both states are essentially asking the court to block ICE from enforcing some immigration laws under the Tenth Amendment. Legal experts agree this is a fresh approach to a centuries-old law.

“It does not necessarily mean that what is being discussed will be accepted by a federal judge or the Supreme Court,” Goodwin said.

“What we are seeing taking shape is what you might call a ‘first impression case,’” she added. “This means we have never seen anything like this before and this is the first time the courts have had to deal with this.”

Before the civil rights movement, Futterman said, Southern states invoked the 10th Amendment to claim they had a sovereign right to maintain racial segregation within their borders.

However, Goodwin pointed out that the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government the power to pursue and enforce equality for all people under the law, effectively nullifying states’ sovereignty over racial discrimination issues.

Futterman and Goodwin agree that the Minnesota and Illinois cases represent unique approaches to the common application of the Tenth Amendment.

“It feels like politics has been turned upside down. Traditionally, the states’ rights debate has often been raised as a defense against the federal government’s attempts to enforce civil rights laws to ensure equal protection for all people under the law,” Futterman said.

“And here the states are saying, ‘Hey, what’s happening is the opposite. It’s the federal government that’s actually targeting the states to protect vulnerable populations.'”

“These types of incidents and lawsuits don’t happen every day.”