Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
On January 24, 2026, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent Minnesota Governor Tim Walz a letter that read less like routine federal correspondence and more like an ultimatum. Hand over detailed data about Medicaid and food assistance recipients. Grant federal access to voter registration records. Dismantle sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement. Do all this, or watch thousands of federal immigration agents remain deployed indefinitely in the Twin Cities—a force roughly triple the size of Minneapolis and St. Paul’s police departments combined.
Five days later, 22 state attorneys general fired back. Their response, led by New York’s Letitia James, accused the Trump administration of attempting “through force what it cannot achieve through the courts.”
States have tools to resist federal pressure. The question is whether those tools work when federal pressure reaches this intensity.
What makes this confrontation different from past federal-state disputes is that the Trump administration deployed Operation Metro Surge—roughly 3,000 federal agents—to a state where undocumented immigrants represent less than 2 percent of the population, then explicitly linked the agents’ withdrawal to state policy changes. The administration threatened to withhold $515 million quarterly in Medicaid funding. And it demanded access to voter data that states typically guard fiercely.
Constitutional Limits on Federal Power
States resisting federal demands rely on three well-established constitutional doctrines. The first is the rule that the federal government can’t force state officials to enforce federal law or carry out federal administrative tasks.
Printz v. United States established this in 1997. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Twenty years later, Murphy v. NCAA extended the principle further—the federal government can’t tell state legislatures which laws they must pass or ban.
The second doctrine limits federal coercion through conditions on federal funding. Congress can attach conditions to federal funding, but there’s a line. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts called the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion threat “a gun to the head.” The federal government had told states: expand Medicaid or lose all federal Medicaid funding—not new money, but everything. Since Medicaid represents over 20 percent of the average state’s budget, Roberts wrote, states had no real choice. That’s unconstitutional coercion.
The third doctrine concerns equal treatment of states. Minnesota ranks 28th nationally in total immigrant population—a relatively modest number given the state’s overall size. Yet the administration deployed close to 10 percent of the nation’s federal immigration agents there. Attorney General Keith Ellison pointed out the obvious: “Operation Metro Surge is clearly about political retribution against a state that has never voted for Donald Trump.”
When federal law enforcement gets deployed selectively to punish political opponents rather than based on neutral law enforcement priorities, it raises due process and equal protection concerns.
How States Fight Back in Court
Minnesota filed a lawsuit in January 2026, naming Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other federal officials as defendants. The lawsuit asked the court to declare that Operation Metro Surge violates the Tenth Amendment and the equal sovereignty principle.
States also request a court order that temporarily stops something while a case is decided. To get one, you need to show four things: a reasonable chance of winning the case, damage that can’t be fixed later without the order, that the harm outweighs the harm to the other side, and that the order serves the public interest. Minnesota argued that Operation Metro Surge was causing disruption to schools, hospitals, and businesses, and that the psychological trauma to residents constituted damage that can’t be fixed later.
Federal judges are cautious about blocking federal law enforcement operations. When Judge Katherine Menendez considered Minnesota’s motion to halt Operation Metro Surge entirely, she denied it on January 31. She acknowledged the “profound and even heartbreaking” harms—disruptions, racial profiling incidents, excessive force. But she reasoned that the federal government’s interest in enforcing immigration law outweighed these concerns at the preliminary stage.
The case continues through discovery and either a trial or a judge’s decision based on the facts. But in the interim, the federal action continues. States pursue other remedies simultaneously.
Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction
The Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to hear a case first, without lower courts, when a state is a party. This means a state can file directly in the Supreme Court, skipping the usual lower courts entirely.
The Court exercises this power sparingly—only when cases are important enough and serious enough. But a coordinated federal assault on state sovereignty, backed by thousands of federal agents and threats to withdraw billions in funding, might qualify. Minnesota’s situation potentially meets the standard: the state claims injury to its sovereign authority and ability to govern its own residents.
If Minnesota or the coalition of 22 states filed in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, the case would be assigned to a court-appointed official who handles initial proceedings. The Court would then decide whether to accept it, decline it in favor of lower courts, or issue a preliminary order while the case develops. Historical precedent suggests the Court is unlikely to stay federal action on an emergency basis absent extraordinary circumstances.
Massachusetts v. EPA established that states have special standing to sue, giving them a somewhat easier path to bring a case to court than individual litigants enjoy. Courts recognize that states have interests that affect their ability to govern themselves, worthy of judicial recognition.
The Multi-State Coalition Strategy
Twenty-two attorneys signing a coordinated letter represents a sophisticated litigation strategy that’s proven effective.
Democratic attorneys in 22 states and the District of Columbia began coordinating before Trump took office on January 20, 2025. They anticipated aggressive executive action and prepared coordinated litigation strategies. The mechanics work on multiple levels: formal letters that signal national consensus, coordinated lawsuits in different appeals courts creating multiple pressure points for judicial review, and shared legal research that lets smaller states benefit from the litigation capacity of larger ones like California and New York.
From 2025 through early 2026, Democratic state attorneys filed 71 lawsuits against the Trump administration. Of the 71 lawsuits filed, 51 have been resolved, with Democratic state attorneys winning 40 of those resolved cases—a success rate of approximately 78 percent. Twenty cases remain unresolved. These victories blocked efforts to end birthright citizenship, prevented certain federal funding cuts, and struck down executive orders states claimed violated the law.
Through coordinated litigation, states held onto an estimated $4.5 billion in federal funding that would have otherwise been blocked. Arizona protected approximately $1.5 billion. California preserved approximately $168 billion.
When 22 states file coordinated suits or join the same lawsuit, courts recognize that the federal action affects the entire nation. They’re more likely to issue court orders that apply across the entire country. Federal judges also appear more willing to take seriously legal challenges that have been vetted by multiple states’ legal resources and leadership.
The coalition opposing the administration’s actions consists of 22 Democratic-led states—the states that opposed Trump in 2024. During the Obama administration, Republican-led states coordinated multi-state litigation to challenge federal action, including the 25-state challenge to the Affordable Care Act. This partisan pattern raises questions about whether multi-state coalitions represent genuine constitutional concerns or are primarily tools of partisan opposition. Legal observers across the political spectrum acknowledge that both situations involve real constitutional questions.
Federal Funding Threats
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it would begin withholding $515 million quarterly from Minnesota’s programs unless the state took specified remedial actions. The Department of Agriculture froze funding related to food assistance programs. These are immediate fiscal pressure that forces budget decisions even as litigation proceeds.
This is precisely the kind of coercion the Supreme Court addressed in the Affordable Care Act case. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Medicaid represents such a large portion of state budgets that threatening to withdraw all funding leaves states with no real choice. The Court called it unconstitutional.
The administration’s funding threats might be easier to challenge successfully than Operation Metro Surge itself. Courts are more likely to issue court orders that stop something before it happens while the case continues than to halt ongoing operations. If the federal government implements funding cutoffs, that could trigger emergency litigation with faster written arguments and quicker review by higher courts.
Attorney James and the coalition of 22 states explicitly invoked the constitutional rules against forcing states to enforce federal law and against threatening to cut funding in their response, arguing that conditional withdrawal of federal services for state policy choices violated what the Supreme Court had established as unconstitutional.
The Voter Data Demand
Bondi’s letter demanded that Minnesota grant the Department of Justice access to voter registration records. This demand stands on shakier constitutional ground than the enforcement aspects.
States have primary responsibility for conducting elections and protecting voter privacy under the Constitution. While federal law permits the Justice Department to bring actions regarding voting rights and authorizes certain inspection of records, no federal court has ever held that the federal government can demand complete voter registration files with nothing removed or hidden, including sensitive personal information like Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers.
When the administration’s Justice Department began making such demands of various states in late 2025, multiple state election officials and attorneys raised constitutional objections. They argued that voter privacy statutes and state constitutional provisions restricted federal access to sensitive data.
Governor Tim Walz’s response captured the absurdity: “There’s two million documents in the Epstein files we’re still waiting on. Go ahead and work on those.” The federal government was demanding data it had no clear authority to access, using enforcement as leverage.
Historical Precedent
American history has witnessed repeated cycles of federal-state conflict over the boundaries of federal authority.
During the nineteenth century, northern states attempted to make it impossible to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts through state laws designed to protect people from federal slave catchers. These states didn’t openly defy the federal government—they used their authority to make federal enforcement difficult and costly. Courts ultimately upheld federal authority, but not before resistance had affected how federal power could be exercised in practice.
More recently, in 2010, Arizona enacted a law that tried to expand state enforcement of immigration rules. The Supreme Court struck down several provisions as conflicting with federal authority, but upheld others. The case established that states cannot unilaterally expand enforcement authority, but retain some power to regulate their own law enforcement’s priorities.
California adopted “sanctuary state” laws limiting cooperation with federal enforcement. When the federal government challenged these laws, federal courts upheld them, reasoning that the rule against forcing states to enforce federal law prevents the federal government from requiring states to participate in federal enforcement.
These patterns show that federal authority, while generally supreme in these matters, does have meaningful constitutional limits. Resistance—even when ultimately unsuccessful—shapes how federal authority operates in practice.
Possible Outcomes
Federal courts might rule that Operation Metro Surge violates the Tenth Amendment and equal sovereignty principle, that the data demands exceed federal authority, and that the threatened funding cutoffs constitute unconstitutional coercion. If court orders halt the operation and these orders are upheld on appeal, state sovereignty would be reinforced. The constitutional rules against forcing states to enforce federal law and against threatening to cut funding would gain new vitality.
Or courts might find merit in portions of the arguments while stopping short of broad relief. They might declare that certain specific demands—like the data demand—exceed federal authority, while permitting the operation to continue. They might rule that threatening to withdraw funding violates the coercion doctrine, while leaving the core enforcement intact.
Or federal courts might defer substantially to federal law enforcement judgment and permit Operation Metro Surge and the federal demands to proceed. Judge Menendez’s January 31 decision refusing to issue a court order suggests this outcome might occur. Under this scenario, courts would acknowledge constitutional concerns but conclude that they shouldn’t second-guess federal law enforcement decisions about resource allocation.
If federal authority to demand data, compel policy changes, and threaten enforcement actions is unlimited, then the basic system of shared power between federal and state governments would be destroyed. States would become branches of the federal government with no real independence, unable to resist federal demands through legal process.
Conversely, if courts enforce meaningful limits on federal authority, states retain genuine sovereignty and a capacity for independent action. The Constitution’s structure rests on the assumption that states possess independent authority. The Supreme Court’s federalism doctrine over the past few decades has reaffirmed that principle. Whether that principle remains enforceable through litigation—whether federal action can be stopped when states invoke their rights—represents the critical question.
Timeline and Next Steps
Minnesota seeks relatively expedited proceedings because Operation Metro Surge causes ongoing harm—school disruptions, business closures, psychological trauma to residents. Federal judges can order speeding up discovery in cases involving constitutional concerns, potentially compressing what would normally be multi-year litigation into months.
The federal government has called the lawsuit “legally frivolous,” signaling that federal lawyers don’t believe the constitutional arguments are serious. The Justice Department will likely file motions to dismiss the case, arguing that courts shouldn’t intervene in federal law enforcement matters and that states don’t have the legal right to bring this lawsuit. These motions will be decided within weeks to a couple of months, giving the first real indication of how receptive federal courts might be to constitutional arguments.
If the federal government implements funding cutoffs, that could trigger emergency litigation for court orders that temporarily stop something while a case is decided, with faster written arguments and quicker review by higher courts.
The multi-state coalition’s strategy includes building a political-legal record for potential appeals to the Supreme Court. By coordinating 22 states’ efforts, the coalition creates a record showing broad consensus that the federal government is overreaching. This might persuade the Supreme Court that the case is important enough to warrant direct attention through original jurisdiction.
Federal district court decisions might come within three to six months. Appellate court decisions within another six months to a year. Potential Supreme Court review within the next year after that. Operation Metro Surge, federal demands for data and policy changes, and the broader federal-state confrontation will likely continue during litigation, with only court orders potentially altering the status quo in the interim.
The constitutional question about federal authority and state sovereignty will play out not in courts first, but in the streets, in budget processes, and through continued federal pressure even as lawyers and judges battle over the underlying legal principles.
What emerges from this confrontation will reveal what constraints federal power faces when states invoke their rights and demand judicial enforcement of constitutional limits. A federal system that permits one level of government to compel another level to abandon its own policies through threats and force isn’t truly federal at all. Conversely, a federal system in which states can block federal law enforcement action wholesale merely by invoking sovereignty fails to provide the national unity necessary for the federal government to fulfill its constitutional role.
The constitutional balance—what is enforceable, what courts will prevent, what states can achieve through litigation—remains to be clarified through the coming judicial decisions. That clarification will shape not immigration enforcement, but the practical boundaries of federal authority across all domains of federal-state relations.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.