In his press conference announcing the suit, Ellison emphasized the same basic arguments as his formal complaint: Namely, that ICE’s enforcement “surge” in Minnesota amounts to a “violation of the Tenth Amendment and the sovereign laws and powers granted to states.” In essence, Ellison and his Minnesota’s Democratic Party leadership confreres argue that the constitutional federalism articulated in the Tenth Amendment and its corollary of “states’ rights” can shield the Land of 10,000 Lakes from the long enforcement arm of federal immigration law. According to this argument, if a state’s constitutional officers deem a federal law to be unconstitutional, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution – which normally establishes federal law as “the supreme law of the land” over state law – simply does not apply.
Author: Josh Hammer
Published at: 2026-01-31 22:45:02
Still want to read the full version? Full article
