US Department of Justice Slams Minnesota Lawsuit Challenging ICE Surge as "Legally Frivolous"
In a scathing response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, the US Department of Justice has labeled claims that an immediate stop to the recent surge of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the state as "legally frivolous". The DOJ's filing with the US District Court in Minnesota argues that the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction is without merit.
According to the memo, the plaintiffs' 10th Amendment claims have no basis in law. The Tenth Amendment at the heart of their arguments is distinct from the one stated in the Constitution and does not confer states with the power to veto federal action justified under enumerated powers. The DOJ maintains that federal agents are enforcing federal immigration law, not Minnesota state law.
The lawsuit alleges that federal agents have engaged in unlawful conduct, including warrantless arrests, citing an incident where a federal agent entered a restaurant without a warrant. However, the DOJ disputes this claim, stating that defendants are acting within their authority to enforce federal immigration law.
Judge Katherine Menendez is considering granting an immediate temporary restraining order limiting ICE activities, despite it being Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a federal holiday. The judge previously declined to issue such an order until she heard from the federal government.
The lawsuit argues that the surge of federal agents poses a threat to public safety and infringes on state and local police powers. In response, the DOJ asserts that the presence of federal agents is necessary to maintain law and order in the area.
In a scathing response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, the US Department of Justice has labeled claims that an immediate stop to the recent surge of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the state as "legally frivolous". The DOJ's filing with the US District Court in Minnesota argues that the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction is without merit.
According to the memo, the plaintiffs' 10th Amendment claims have no basis in law. The Tenth Amendment at the heart of their arguments is distinct from the one stated in the Constitution and does not confer states with the power to veto federal action justified under enumerated powers. The DOJ maintains that federal agents are enforcing federal immigration law, not Minnesota state law.
The lawsuit alleges that federal agents have engaged in unlawful conduct, including warrantless arrests, citing an incident where a federal agent entered a restaurant without a warrant. However, the DOJ disputes this claim, stating that defendants are acting within their authority to enforce federal immigration law.
Judge Katherine Menendez is considering granting an immediate temporary restraining order limiting ICE activities, despite it being Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a federal holiday. The judge previously declined to issue such an order until she heard from the federal government.
The lawsuit argues that the surge of federal agents poses a threat to public safety and infringes on state and local police powers. In response, the DOJ asserts that the presence of federal agents is necessary to maintain law and order in the area.
. I mean, can't we just let the states handle local issues without the federal government breathing down our necks? The idea that Minnesota has no power to veto federal action on immigration is just not right. It's like they're saying "we know better" than the people who elected them. And what about public safety? If a few rogue agents are causing problems, shouldn't we be able to address those issues locally without having to go through a federal lawsuit? 
The fact that Judge Menendez is even considering an immediate restraining order just highlights how messed up this situation is. Can't we just have some common sense and figure out a better way to handle immigration enforcement? 
the 10th amendment thing is all about limiting federal power, not giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want. 
like, why are they jumping on this lawsuit so fast? i'm just saying, the DOJ's got some solid arguments here 
and I'm not even mad about it. I mean, they're just doing their job right? But come on, 10th Amendment claims are just weak sauce. Like, can't Minnesota state law even say "no" to federal immigration law or something? 
.
I don't get why they're being so harsh on those Minnesotans trying to protect their communities. It's not like they're trying to stop ICE from doing their job or anything, just asking them to respect some basic laws and rights 
. And what really gets my goat is that the DOJ thinks they can just sweep those concerns under the rug because of some technicality 
.
. The idea that states can just stop the federal government from enforcing immigration laws is super concerning. I mean, we already have a complex issue on our hands with immigration, and now some people think they can just nullify federal authority? That's not how democracy works, you know?
.
. I don't think it's fair that states are being pushed around by the feds like this. Can't they see how this is affecting local law enforcement and our communities?
. I hope she sees the bigger picture here and puts some real pressure on the DOJ to back down.
. Can't we just have some stability and predictability for once? My kids are trying to grow up in a world that's already pretty crazy, can't they just have one less thing to worry about? 