Elie Honig Comments On Lawsuit
There are moments in politics where the argument collapses under its own weight, not because it lacks passion, but because it runs headlong into constitutional reality. Minnesota Democrats’ attempt to sue the federal government into halting the enforcement of immigration law is one of those moments.
The effort arrives as federal authorities prepare to deploy additional immigration officers to the state, a move that has intensified political tensions following a January incident in which a woman, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot after driving her vehicle toward an ICE agent during an enforcement operation. The shooting itself is under investigation, but the broader political reaction has already taken center stage.
CNN just crushed the hopes and dreams of Amy Klobuchar, Tim Walz, and Jacob Frey and their “federal invasion” lawsuit charade:
ANDERSON COOPER: “Does this lawsuit have any chance of doing *anything*?”
ELLIE HONIG: “No.”
— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) January 13, 2026
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, seeks to curb federal immigration actions within the state. On its face, the goal may appeal to activists who oppose current enforcement priorities. In practice, however, it runs directly into the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two conflict. That legal reality was laid bare during a CNN segment following an interview with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, when host Anderson Cooper turned to Elie Honig, the network’s senior legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor, for a blunt assessment.
Honig did not hedge. Asked whether the lawsuit had any chance of succeeding, he replied that it did not. A state cannot compel the federal government to stop enforcing federal law, and courts have consistently rejected attempts to do so.
Similar legal strategies have been tried before, including a comparable case filed by Illinois, and the results have been limited at best. Even in the most favorable scenario for Minnesota, Honig explained, the state might extract additional information about ICE training, procedures, or operational details. Halting deportations or enforcement actions altogether is simply not on the table.
NEW: Even CNN's Legal Analyst SHOOTS DOWN Minnesota and Illinois’ lawsuits trying to ban ICE agents from the region:
"The suits are really political diatribes masquerading as lawsuits!"
"There is zero precedent for that. There is no way a judge can say, you, federal law… pic.twitter.com/VP5s4R41Pu
— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) January 13, 2026
The discussion also touched on the shooting itself and the complications that arise when state and federal investigations proceed on parallel tracks without cooperation. While it is theoretically possible for a state to bring charges against a federal officer, Honig noted that the legal obstacles are immense, particularly when federal authorities have already indicated the agent acted within policy. He further observed that an FBI review carries little practical force once senior federal officials have publicly stated their position on the incident.
In the end, the most revealing moment was not the back-and-forth over the shooting, but the swift dismantling of the lawsuit’s premise. In a matter of seconds, Honig reduced a high-profile political maneuver to a constitutional nonstarter. For all the noise surrounding the case, the legal fundamentals remain unchanged, and they leave Minnesota’s challenge with far more symbolism than substance.
