The Tenth Amendment Limit on Federal Operations Inside States

Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A question that rarely gets tested in federal court with this kind of urgency is being examined in Minneapolis: Can the federal government flood a state with thousands of armed agents and call it immigration enforcement, or does the Constitution’s protection of state power mean something when the executive branch sends thousands of armed agents to control the state?

Federal immigration agents descended on the Twin Cities starting in December 2025, with major escalation announced January 6, 2026. Estimates of the deployment range from 2,000 to 3,000 agents depending on the source and whether the count includes only ICE or all DHS agencies. Minnesota sued, arguing that Operation Metro Surge crosses the constitutional line separating federal authority from state sovereignty. Nineteen other state attorneys general filed briefs supporting Minnesota.

The hearing came days after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti over the weekend. Minnesota’s lawyers told the judge that if the operation continues, more people will be harmed and more will die. They asked for an emergency court order that stops something immediately while a case is being decided.

The Judge’s Questions on Constitutional Authority

Federal judges don’t usually spend five hours on an initial court hearing unless they’re genuinely struggling with something. The questions weren’t routine procedural questions before a predetermined ruling.

Immigration law is unquestionably federal. Congress gave the executive branch authority to enforce it. Minnesota’s answer to what makes this different: scale, purpose, and effect. Assistant Attorney General Brian Carter told the judge that the state presented evidence that Trump administration officials had framed Operation Metro Surge as punishment for Minnesota’s sanctuary policies and as leverage to force policy changes. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent Governor Tim Walz a letter demanding voter rolls, Medicaid records, and other sensitive data.

For Minnesota’s lawyers, that letter transformed Operation Metro Surge from an enforcement action into extortion—the federal government using federal agents as leverage to force policy concessions.

The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty

Minnesota’s legal argument rests on the rule that the federal government can’t force states to do its work. The principle reflects a structural constitutional idea: the Framers designed a system where governments exercise shared power to govern the same people, and the federal government’s power would be dangerously expanded if it could impress officers into its service.

The rule, as currently articulated, applies to direct orders. Congress can’t order states to do something. Minnesota argues it also applies when the federal government’s exercise of its own powers has the side effect of disrupting functions. Minneapolis Police Department officers logged over 3,000 hours of overtime in four days responding to incidents triggered by federal operations. The argument is that this massive disruption—forcing resources to be diverted from ordinary policing duties to clean up federal operations—constitutes an unconstitutional violation of sovereignty.

The DOJ’s response is straightforward: enforcement is a federal power, the president has broad discretion to set priorities, and courts shouldn’t second-guess those decisions.

Ruling for Minnesota would require establishing that courts can strike down federal exercises of power on Tenth Amendment grounds—a principle that contradicts the Supreme Court’s long-standing view that courts typically won’t enforce the Tenth Amendment except in cases where the federal government forces states to do federal work. Ruling for the DOJ would mean saying that the Tenth Amendment provides no meaningful constraint on federal operations within states.

Nineteen States Are Watching This

Nineteen attorneys general, plus the District of Columbia, joined supporting legal documents filed by other states backing Minnesota’s request for emergency relief. California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel wrote that “if the federal government can flood a state with thousands of agents, illegally undermine local law enforcement, shut down schools, and destabilize entire communities without consequence, Michigan could be next.”

The supporting states emphasized that Operation Metro Surge has led to racial profiling, excessive force against peaceful protesters, warrantless entries into private homes, and deployments of tear gas in sensitive locations like schools and hospitals. If the federal government can deploy thousands of agents to Minnesota without constitutional constraint, nothing prevents the same operation in California, New York, Illinois, or any other location that the Trump administration deems insufficiently cooperative with federal enforcement.

The Emergency Relief Standard

Minnesota asked for an order that stops something immediately while a case is being decided. The test typically requires showing four elements: likelihood of winning the case, harm that money can’t fix later, weighing the fairness to both sides, and that the public interest supports the order.

For Minnesota, establishing likelihood of winning the case is the central challenge. The rule against forcing states to do federal work, as currently articulated by the Supreme Court, applies most directly to direct congressional orders to states. Minnesota must argue that implicit federal coercion—using federal enforcement power in ways that force states to abandon policies or risk federal occupation—violates the Tenth Amendment with similar force. This is novel legal ground, a difficult sell to a federal judge.

On the harm element, Minnesota had considerably stronger ground. The state presented evidence of ongoing constitutional violations—racial profiling of residents, warrantless entries into homes, excessive force, arrests of peaceful protesters, deployments of tear gas that injured children. These harms to individuals’ constitutional rights are classic examples of harm that money can’t fix later.

Weighing the fairness to both sides presented more complexity. The federal government argued that denying Operation Metro Surge would harm its ability to enforce federal law in a region where, it claimed, there had been significant lawbreaking. Minnesota countered that the balance must account for the extraordinary scale of the operation and the apparent pretextual use of enforcement to punish political opposition.

The public interest factor also presented genuine tension. The Trump administration argued that the public has an interest in enforcement of the law. Minnesota and the supporting states argued that the public has an overriding interest in constitutional government, in federalism structures that prevent federal domination of states, and in law enforcement that respects constitutional rights rather than engaging in racial profiling and excessive force.

Illinois’s Different Legal Strategy

Illinois, led by Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Governor JB Pritzker, filed its own federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s operations.

While Minnesota emphasizes the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of sovereignty and the rule against forcing states to do federal work, Illinois emphasizes violations of the Administrative Procedure Act—a federal law that requires government agencies to follow fair procedures—arguing that the Trump administration’s policies are “unreasonable and inconsistent” and therefore unlawful under federal administrative law. Illinois also filed separate litigation challenging the Trump administration’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, invoking the law that generally prevents federal military troops from doing police work.

Illinois also passed a law allowing residents to sue federal agents who arrest them without proper legal authority and allowing residents to recover damages, including punitive damages if agents wear masks or fail to properly identify themselves. The Trump administration filed suit in federal court seeking to invalidate the Illinois law on grounds that states can’t impose liability on federal officers carrying out federal duties. Illinois defended the law, arguing that it protects constitutional rights and holds federal officials accountable for unlawful conduct.

The decision on Minnesota’s request for an emergency order could have significant ripple effects on these other cases. Concluding that federal courts can invoke the Tenth Amendment to restrain federal enforcement operations could strengthen Illinois’s Administrative Procedure Act claims and create pressure for courts to recognize broader limits on federal enforcement. Denying the emergency order would signal to other courts that even massive, apparently pretextual federal operations may fall within the executive’s unreviewable discretion.

The Supreme Court’s Deference to Executive Enforcement

Whatever the judge decides, this case is likely headed to the appellate courts and potentially the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has historically shown respect for the executive’s decisions in immigration matters. Justice Kavanaugh’s recent 2025 opinion emphasized this respect, noting that courts should not “step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws.” He wrote that “judges are not appointed to make those policy calls” about enforcement priorities, and that “the Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities.”

This respect for executive decisions is deeply embedded in federal law. It suggests that even if the judge were to grant Minnesota’s request, the Supreme Court might ultimately reverse on appeal.

Yet there are signs of potential fracture in this deference. The increasing attention to retaliation, racial profiling, and massive constitutional violations—tear gas canisters placed beneath cars carrying infants, warrantless entries into homes, arrests of people engaged in constitutionally protected speech—may convince some jurists that there are limits to executive respect in enforcement. The interstate coalition backing Minnesota suggests that even conservative-led states might join such litigation if similar operations were directed at them under a different administration. Federalism concerns have historically attracted support across the political spectrum, particularly when states perceive the federal government as overreaching.

Federalism and Executive Power in the Modern Era

The Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states, but for most of American history, courts have generally refused to use the Tenth Amendment to limit federal power. The rule against forcing states to do federal work represents a partial exception, but even there, the principle applies mainly to direct congressional orders, not to federal exercises of power given to the executive by Congress that have indirect effects on states.

Operation Metro Surge has forced courts to confront a question that has become increasingly urgent: when the federal government has vast administrative capacity and can deploy thousands of armed federal agents to any location within days, does the Tenth Amendment provide any meaningful constraint on federal action?

If courts defer entirely to executive enforcement decisions, then the Tenth Amendment becomes unable to limit federal power within states, because the federal government can always justify vast deployments under the umbrella of enforcement. Yet if courts begin second-guessing executive enforcement priorities on federalism grounds, they enter contested territory where judges are making policy choices that the Constitution arguably delegates to elected branches.

The resolution of this tension will determine not only the fate of Operation Metro Surge but also whether states can maintain power against the federal government and whether federalism retains practical force as a meaningful constitutional constraint on federal authority.

What Happens Next

Judge Menendez indicated that she would take time to render her decision on the emergency order. “I do not intend in any way for the depth of my analysis or whatever time I take to write to be seen as a belief that this is unimportant,” she said. “It’s because it’s extremely important that I’m doing everything I can to get it right.”

This approach suggests that she is taking the constitutional arguments seriously and understands that whatever she decides will be appealed and will likely establish precedent that extends well beyond this particular case.

Granting the order would almost certainly prompt the Department of Justice to appeal to the appeals court that handles cases from this region. Denying it would likely prompt Minnesota to appeal. Either way, this case is poised to reach the appellate courts quickly, and it may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

If federal courts can’t constrain the scale and pretextual use of federal enforcement operations in states, then federalism has been fundamentally reshaped by executive practice rather than by constitutional amendment or congressional action. The verdict will determine whether the Tenth Amendment remains a meaningful constraint on federal power in the twenty-first century or whether it has become merely a historical relic invoked but not enforced.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.