{snip}
Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, has closely followed the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s next in the courtrooms.
Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.
CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking for from judges in their lawsuits?
Honig: Fundamentally, both of these states are asking federal judges to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration law in their states and cities. There are variations between them, but that’s the core ask. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are unconstitutional.
{snip}
CNN: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?
Honig: None. There is no example, nor does either state cite an example in their papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’ve heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case law, is essentially, “Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an invasion.” There is plenty of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.”
CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?
Honig: I think the arguments that both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either entirely or just the surge, are close to completely meritless. Fundamentally, what they’re asking for is legally completely unwarranted.
CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?
Honig: It’s so dependent on the judge here. But I think the best, realistic scenario for the states is – if they get sympathetic judges who decide to put ICE through its paces – maybe they call in ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officials as witnesses, probe into ICE’s training, policies and tactics and issue some sort of declaration that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some sort of window dressing like that is probably the best realistic outcome. There’s no way a judge is going to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from carrying out enforcement activities.” And if a judge does do that, it’ll be reversed.
CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?
Honig: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that the state and local authorities cannot block the feds from carrying out their federal duties. And also Article Two, which gives the federal executive branch the power to enforce federal law. Those are the legal theories that really are in play here.
{snip}
CNN: Is there a timeline we can anticipate here for how quickly the judges may act on these lawsuits?
Honig: Judges are in charge of handling their own dockets and calendars. I would assume judges would understand that these are fairly immediate and emergent issues and would want to get the parties in court within days, not months.
The post Why This Legal Expert Says the Minnesota and Illinois Immigration Lawsuits ‘Are Close to Completely Meritless’ appeared first on American Renaissance.
American RenaissanceRead More
R1
T1
