Anti-ICE Protests in Minneapolis Raise Constitutional Concerns

Legal experts say unrest does not yet justify federal emergency powers, but obstruction of agents could cross the line

Published on Feb. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Anti-ICE protesters in Minneapolis have surrounded federal agents, leading to tense confrontations, but legal experts say the unrest does not yet inhibit the federal government's constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. However, if state officials move to block or obstruct federal agents, that could raise Supremacy Clause concerns and potentially justify the use of federal emergency powers.

Why it matters

The dynamics in Minneapolis highlight the delicate balance between the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law, and the Supremacy Clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict. Legal experts warn that if the state were to pass laws obstructing federal law enforcement, that could trigger a constitutional crisis.

The details

Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement effort, has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis, leading to thousands of arrests. This has sparked resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, fueling further public outrage. Democratic state leaders have criticized the operation, but legal experts say this does not amount to unlawful 'nullification' as long as they merely fail to assist the federal government, which is protected by the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment.

  • Operation Metro Surge began in December 2025, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul.
  • In January 2026, the DOJ subpoenaed Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and three others for information on whether they conspired to interfere with ICE's work.

The players

Ilya Somin

A George Mason University law professor who says hindering federal agents' work, even aggressively, does not rise to the level of violating the Constitution.

Tim Walz

The Democratic governor of Minnesota who has compared ICE's presence to the Civil War and welcomed a reduction in federal personnel, while urging a faster drawdown.

Jacob Frey

The Democratic mayor of Minneapolis who has said the city would not assist with immigration enforcement, stating "It's not our job."

Tom Homan

Trump's border czar who is leading immigration operations in Minneapolis and has downplayed the impact of anti-ICE agitators, saying "You're not going to stop ICE. You're not going to stop Border Patrol."

Ilan Wurman

A Minnesota law professor who says that while Trump 'probably' could invoke the Insurrection Act, by constitutional standards a president should only call upon the military to enforce federal law as a 'last resort.'

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“There is no general principle of law which says that anything that makes the work of federal agents more difficult in any way somehow violates the Constitution.”

— Ilya Somin, George Mason University law professor

“I mean, is this a Fort Sumter? It's a physical assault. It's an armed force that's assaulting, that's killing my constituents, my citizens.”

— Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota (The Atlantic)

“We were never going to agree, and we have not agreed, to enforce federal immigration law. Why? It's not our job.”

— Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis (The New York Times)

“You're not going to stop ICE. You're not going to stop Border Patrol. These roadblocks they're putting up? It's a joke. It's not going to work, and it's only going to get you arrested.”

— Tom Homan, Trump's border czar

What’s next

The DOJ is investigating whether Minnesota officials conspired to interfere with ICE's work, and the Trump administration has said the Insurrection Act remains an option if unrest intensifies, though experts say the current protests do not yet meet the criteria for such drastic federal action.

The takeaway

The confrontations in Minneapolis highlight the delicate balance between state and federal authority when it comes to immigration enforcement. While the protests have been intense, legal experts say the unrest does not yet rise to the level of a constitutional crisis that would justify the use of federal emergency powers, as long as state officials do not actively obstruct federal agents.