The federal judge in Minnesota heard arguments today on whether to expel ICE agents from the state and put an end to the Trump administration's sweeping immigration enforcement.

The hearing comes as state and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul officials warn that ICE's actions have pushed them into crisis.

We're joined now by Mary McCord, Executive Director of the Institute

for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. Mary, thank you for being with us.

Sure, my pleasure.

At its heart, is this lawsuit, is this case really about immigration enforcement, or

is it fundamentally about the balance of power between states and the federal

government? Well, the way that it's been pled by the state of Minnesota and the cities of

Minneapolis and St. Paul, it does bring to issue this idea of federalism and principles of

states' rights and the federal government's rights. And they have a

number of other claims, but two of the key claims in their complaint and the key claims that were

in their motion for preliminary injunction that was heard by the court today is that what the

government is doing here with this entire surge that in the way it's been implemented has violated, you know,

the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment when it comes to some of the searches and seizures,

the First Amendment when it comes to retaliation against protesters, racial profiling,

aggressive conduct, all those things. They're saying that this infringes on their Tenth Amendment

rights because states are reserved

the police power. And because of the surge and because of the pressure it's putting on the

state and the cities and where it's occurring, that's impacting their ability to protect public

safety, general health and welfare, all obligations of the state.

And they also argue it violates the notion of equal sovereignty between the states because

they argue that Minnesota is being targeted for political reasons, whereas other states

...