When anti-ICE clashes trigger federal intervention: Experts explain the constitutional breaking point
This affects the entire country.
Anti-ICE protesters have surrounded federal agents, Democratic leaders have denounced enforcement operations and tensions in Minneapolis have boiled over — but legal experts say none of it yet crosses the line into a constitutional breakdown or would justify the use of federal emergency powers by President Donald Trump.
Legal analysts say the unrest, while volatile, does not inhibit the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. That threshold would only be crossed if state officials themselves moved to block or materially obstruct federal agents, raising Supremacy Clause concerns.
Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, told Fox News Digital that hindering federal agents' work, even aggressively, does not rise to that level.
"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," Somin said.
FEDS SHIFT TO TARGETED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS UNDER HOMAN
Protesters have taken to the streets of Minneapolis in recent weeks to confront immigration officers during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minnesota. During enforcement actions, protesters have at times surrounded ICE agents with shouting, whistles, filming and unruly crowds, creating a tense mix of peaceful demonstrators and coordinated agitators that has occasionally escalated into blockades or violence.
The dynamics at play have centered on two legal principles. On one hand, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law. On the other, obstruction of federal law enforcement is unlawful and could violate the Supremacy Clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict.
If the state were to pass laws that obstruct federal law enforcement from performing its job duties, that would trigger supremacy clause concerns, Somin said, but he noted that such conditions are not present in Minnesota.
Operation Metro Surge began in December, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The effort has led to thousands of arrests, but it has spurred resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, which fueled further public outrage. The FBI is now investigating those incidents.
Democratic state leaders, meanwhile, have widely criticized the operation and drawn blame …
This affects the entire country.
Anti-ICE protesters have surrounded federal agents, Democratic leaders have denounced enforcement operations and tensions in Minneapolis have boiled over — but legal experts say none of it yet crosses the line into a constitutional breakdown or would justify the use of federal emergency powers by President Donald Trump.
Legal analysts say the unrest, while volatile, does not inhibit the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. That threshold would only be crossed if state officials themselves moved to block or materially obstruct federal agents, raising Supremacy Clause concerns.
Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, told Fox News Digital that hindering federal agents' work, even aggressively, does not rise to that level.
"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," Somin said.
FEDS SHIFT TO TARGETED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS UNDER HOMAN
Protesters have taken to the streets of Minneapolis in recent weeks to confront immigration officers during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minnesota. During enforcement actions, protesters have at times surrounded ICE agents with shouting, whistles, filming and unruly crowds, creating a tense mix of peaceful demonstrators and coordinated agitators that has occasionally escalated into blockades or violence.
The dynamics at play have centered on two legal principles. On one hand, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law. On the other, obstruction of federal law enforcement is unlawful and could violate the Supremacy Clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict.
If the state were to pass laws that obstruct federal law enforcement from performing its job duties, that would trigger supremacy clause concerns, Somin said, but he noted that such conditions are not present in Minnesota.
Operation Metro Surge began in December, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The effort has led to thousands of arrests, but it has spurred resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, which fueled further public outrage. The FBI is now investigating those incidents.
Democratic state leaders, meanwhile, have widely criticized the operation and drawn blame …
When anti-ICE clashes trigger federal intervention: Experts explain the constitutional breaking point
This affects the entire country.
Anti-ICE protesters have surrounded federal agents, Democratic leaders have denounced enforcement operations and tensions in Minneapolis have boiled over — but legal experts say none of it yet crosses the line into a constitutional breakdown or would justify the use of federal emergency powers by President Donald Trump.
Legal analysts say the unrest, while volatile, does not inhibit the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. That threshold would only be crossed if state officials themselves moved to block or materially obstruct federal agents, raising Supremacy Clause concerns.
Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, told Fox News Digital that hindering federal agents' work, even aggressively, does not rise to that level.
"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," Somin said.
FEDS SHIFT TO TARGETED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS UNDER HOMAN
Protesters have taken to the streets of Minneapolis in recent weeks to confront immigration officers during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minnesota. During enforcement actions, protesters have at times surrounded ICE agents with shouting, whistles, filming and unruly crowds, creating a tense mix of peaceful demonstrators and coordinated agitators that has occasionally escalated into blockades or violence.
The dynamics at play have centered on two legal principles. On one hand, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law. On the other, obstruction of federal law enforcement is unlawful and could violate the Supremacy Clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict.
If the state were to pass laws that obstruct federal law enforcement from performing its job duties, that would trigger supremacy clause concerns, Somin said, but he noted that such conditions are not present in Minnesota.
Operation Metro Surge began in December, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The effort has led to thousands of arrests, but it has spurred resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, which fueled further public outrage. The FBI is now investigating those incidents.
Democratic state leaders, meanwhile, have widely criticized the operation and drawn blame …
0 Comments
0 Shares
43 Views
0 Reviews
