Over the last several months, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen a dramatic escalation in federal immigration enforcement along their chilly streets, with agents arresting thousands – including some US citizens – in neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools and at protests.

The surge is the result of the Trump administration’s commitment to cracking down on immigration, concentrated in Democratic-led cities, and follows weeks of growing tensions between the federal government and local Midwestern officials who have long implored for an end to the operations.

Illinois and Minnesota, joined by their city counterparts, are now separately pursuing legal action against the administration, filing lawsuits Monday in federal courts over immigration enforcement they call unlawful and unconstitutional.

A status conference for Minnesota’s complaint is set for Wednesday morning before US District Judge Katherine M. Menendez. A hearing has not yet been scheduled in Illinois.

But the road ahead for both suits appears dim, with their likelihood for success small, one expert says.

Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, has closely followed the turmoil in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Here, he breaks down the lawsuits, their merits and what’s next in the courtrooms.

Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.

CNN: What are Illinois and Minnesota asking for from judges in their lawsuits?

Honig: Fundamentally, both of these states are asking federal judges to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing immigration law in their states and cities. There are variations between them, but that’s the core ask. As a backup, both states ask the courts for some sort of ruling or declaration that some of the tactics ICE is using are unconstitutional.

CNN: What are the key differences between the lawsuits?

Honig: The main difference is that Illinois asks to block all ICE activity in the state, whereas Minnesota phrases its ask as seeking to stop this “surge” of officers. But pointing to the surge is legally irrelevant, because whether you’re talking about a group of ICE agents who are already there, or who were added after some point, the fundamental ask is still the same. You’re still asking a judge to block ICE from doing its job as it sees fit in your state.

CNN: What is the legal precedent for an ask like that?

Honig: None. There is no example, nor does either state cite an example in their papers, of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’ve heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case law, is essentially, “Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an invasion.” There is plenty of dramatic language in the complaints, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, “Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.”

CNN: In your opinion, how strong do you think the states’ arguments are?

Honig: I think the arguments that both states are making, that ICE should be blocked, either entirely or just the surge, are close to completely meritless. Fundamentally, what they’re asking for is legally completely unwarranted.

CNN: What do you think is the most likely outcome for each suit?

Honig: It’s so dependent on the judge here. But I think the best, realistic scenario for the states is – if they get sympathetic judges who decide to put ICE through its paces – maybe they call in ICE agents as witnesses, or ICE officials as witnesses, probe into ICE’s training, policies and tactics and issue some sort of declaration that ICE needs to do things differently or better. Some sort of window dressing like that is probably the best realistic outcome. There’s no way a judge is going to say, “I hereby block you, ICE, from carrying out enforcement activities.” And if a judge does do that, it’ll be reversed.

CNN: What are the legal principles at play here on the other side?

Honig: First, it’s the Supremacy Clause, which says that the state and local authorities cannot block the feds from carrying out their federal duties. And also Article Two, which gives the federal executive branch the power to enforce federal law. Those are the legal theories that really are in play here.

CNN: If the states’ chances of winning are close to zero, what can be done?

Honig: I’m not saying there’s nothing to be done. This is just not the way to address any abuses or excesses by ICE. If a person has his or her rights violated, if a search is unlawful, if a person is wrongly detained, if a person is injured or killed wrongly by ICE, they can sue. They can go to court and seek specific redress for their specific injuries. What the courts are not supposed to do, first of all, is prohibit the federal executive branch from carrying out federal executive branch prerogatives and, secondly, issue blanket theoretical advisory rulings about the way the world ought to look or ought not to look. Cases need to be about specific injury and specific redress, and these lawsuits are not that.

CNN: Illinois and Chicago sued the Trump administration in October 2025 after it federalized and tried to deploy the Illinois National Guard, also arguing in part that it violated the 10th Amendment. The state was successful in that case and Trump has largely backed off National Guard deployment there for now. What are the key differences between that case and this one over immigration enforcement?

Honig: The National Guard was an entirely different case where Trump used a specific law, Section 12406, to deploy the National Guard. The Supreme Court offered a very specific and nuanced definition of the term “regular forces,” and whether that meant regular law enforcement forces, or regular military forces. So that case was based on the action Trump took that was based on a specific federal statute, and the Supreme Court construed and defined that statute against the Trump administration. Legally, it’s a completely different scenario from what we have here.

CNN: Illinois and Minnesota filed their suits Monday; the latter also filing a temporary restraining order request. What happens now?

Honig: One of two things. One, the judges can just reject these out of hand. I think that’s unlikely. I think the judges are going to want to hear further from the parties. The judges might decide to hold fact-finding hearings, they might decide, “I want to dig into what ICE is doing a bit.” That’s all within the broad discretion of these district court judges. I think those are the next steps, but if a district court judge is to say, “ICE, you can’t go in there, you can’t go into that state, you can’t go into that city,” I think that will get reversed real quick.

CNN: Is there a timeline we can anticipate here for how quickly the judges may act on these lawsuits?

Honig: Judges are in charge of handling their own dockets and calendars. I would assume judges would understand that these are fairly immediate and emergent issues and would want to get the parties in court within days, not months.

EVANSTON, Ill. — Northwestern men’s basketball returns home to face in-state rival No. 13 Illinois for the first of two matchups this season on Wednesday, Jan. 14, at 7:30 p.m. CT. The game will air on Big Ten Network with Cory Provus (play-by-play) and Steve Smith (analyst) on the call and can be heard on WGN Radio 720 and SiriusXM Channel 372 with Dave Eanet (play-by-play) and Billy McKinney (analyst).

Last time out, the Wildcats (8-8, 0-5 Big Ten) suffered a 77-75 overtime setback to Rutgers inside Jersey Mike’s Arena on Sunday (Jan. 11). Northwestern posted 20 assists to just six turnovers, as senior forward Nick Martinelli recorded his second double-double this season with a career-high 34 points and a season-high 12 rebounds. Martinelli’s 34 points are the most by a Wildcat since Boo Buie scored 35 points against Illinois on Feb. 23, 2023, and he logged the first 34+ point, 12+ rebound game by a Northwestern player since Feb. 8, 1998, when Evan Eschmeyer did so against Penn State. Junior forward Arrinten Page chipped in 14 points, six rebounds, and two blocks on 5-of-7 shooting.

The Wildcats currently hold the nation’s best assist-to-turnover ratio, with a 2.16 mark. Northwestern’s turnover-free basketball has continued, with the Wildcats turning the ball over just 8.4 times per game — the fewest nationwide — while averaging 18.4 assists per game (5th in Big Ten, 21st nationally). Compared to previous seasons, the Wildcats are playing at a faster pace and are averaging 14.3 fastbreak points per game (3rd in the Big Ten).

The team has made 47.7% of its field goal attempts (7th in the Big Ten), the highest percentage it has shot through the season’s first 16 games during the Sullivan-Ubben Head Men’s Basketball Coach Chris Collins era. It would also be the second-best field goal percentage in a single-season in program history. The Wildcats are scoring 79.1 points per game, their most through 16 games of a season since 1989-90 (82.4) and their most in a full season since 1970-71 (81.6).

Northwestern has played seven games decided by five points or fewer this season, which leads the Big Ten and is tied for the seventh most nationally. Over the last four seasons, the ‘Cats have played 42 games (20-22) decided by five points or fewer, tied for the fifth most in the country over that span.

This season, Martinelli leads the nation in scoring averaging 24.1 points per game while converting on 58.1% of his field goal attempts (5th in the Big Ten). With 6.8 rebounds per game (13th), Martinelli would join Jerry Lucas (Ohio State: 1959-60, 1960-61) and Zach Edey (Purdue: 2023-24) as the only Big Ten players to ever record 24+ points and 6+ rebounds per game on at least 58% shooting in a season. His 24.1 points per game would be the second-highest scoring average in program history, trailing only Dale Kelley in 1969-70 (24.3).

Dating back to last season, Martinelli has 30 games of 20 or more points, which leads the Big Ten and ranks second nationally. His 12 games scoring 20 or more points this season also lead the conference and rank first among high-major players. After scoring a program single-season record 676 points last season, Martinelli has tallied 1,037 points over the last two seasons combined, ranking third nationally and the most by a forward. Over his last seven games, Martinelli is averaging 29.0 points per game, the highest-scoring seven-game stretch by a Wildcat since at least 1996-97.

Page is averaging 14.1 points, 6.1 rebounds (20th in Big Ten), 2.4 assists, 1.0 steals, and 1.3 blocks (11th) per game while shooting 58.5% from the field (4th). Page has reached double figures in scoring in 11 of his last 13 games.

Junior guard Jayden Reid has posted averages of 10.9 points and 5.6 assists per game (4th in the Big Ten). His 5.6 assists per game would rank second for a season in program history, trailing only Bryant McIntosh (6.7) in 2015-16. In Northwestern’s last game, he surpassed the 300-assist mark for his career.

Northwestern split the season series with the Fighting Illini (13-3, 4-1 Big Ten) in each of the past three seasons. The Wildcats have won three straight home games against Illinois for the first time since 1966-68 and are aiming to win four straight such games for the first time in program history. Illinois was ranked in the AP Top 20 for two of those Northwestern victories, as the Wildcats have defeated at least one AP Top 20 team in each of the past six seasons.

The Fighting Illini come to Evanston riding a five-game winning streak, most recently defeating then-No. 19 Iowa, 75-69. Illinois has the Big Ten’s third-best offense, averaging 86.0 points per game, and is outscoring opponents by 18.6 points per game — ranking second in the conference and 15th nationally. The Fighting Illini are seventh nationally in rebound margin (+11.3). They are led by a trio of Keaton Wagler (15.7 points per game), Kylan Boswell (14.7), and Andrej Stojakovic (14.5).

Northwestern remains home for a Saturday, Jan. 17 matchup with No. 8 Nebraska. Tipoff from Welsh-Ryan Arena is set for 3 p.m. CT on Big Ten Network and WGN Radio 720.

Expect a progressive tax, higher education spending and a Bears stadium to be high on the agenda for Illinois state lawmakers.

Taxpayers have reason to worry as the second half of the 104th Illinois General Assembly begins on Jan. 13.

Typically, lawmakers file and pass fewer bills in the second year of the regular session. But based on the chaotic end to the 2025 regular session and the active veto session, lawmakers are likely to make some costly moves.

Issues to watch: a progressive tax, higher education spending, Tier 2 pensions, data centers, energy and a Chicago Bears stadium.

Issues to watch in 2026

While fewer bills are expected to make it to Pritzker’s desk in 2026, those that could impact taxpayers the most involve a progressive tax, higher education spending, Tier 2 pensions, data centers, energy and a Chicago Bears stadium.

Progressive tax

Illinois has always had a flat income tax. Yet in 2020, lawmakers attempted to amend the state constitution to permit a graduated-rate structure. That amendment would give lawmakers great power to start taxing retirees and raise rates on family farms and small businesses. Illinoisans rejected the amendment resoundingly.

Despite that clear signal from voters, lawmakers filed another bill in 2025 that would have started the amendment process. If passed by voters, that amendment would eliminate Illinois’ constitutional protection that requires when taxes are hiked, they be hiked on everyone so everyone can hold state lawmakers accountable. The bill died, but relentless lawmakers are trying again with a new bill filed during veto session that would let them divide and conquer taxpayers, one income group at a time.

Higher education spending

Illinois was ranked No. 1 for spending per student on higher education in 2024, paying more than double the national average because of declining enrollment, poorly structured finances, growing pension payments and bloated administration. Lawmakers must take a strategic, statewide approach to how it nurtures young people after high school by fixing university funding and broadening workforce training.

Tier 2 pensions

At the end of veto session, a bill increasing Tier 2 pension benefits was passed out of the Illinois House Executive Committee. Projected to cost the state $52.7 billion, the bill would make sweeping changes for pension systems across the state, increasing benefits for Illinois’ Tier 2 retirees hired after 2010.  Government unions are expected to push for boosted benefits during the new session.

Data centers, energy

Despite lifting the 40-year moratorium on nuclear energy at the end of veto session, “Illinois is running out of power.”

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has been touting a clean energy bill that was signed into law in 2021. But his mandate to eliminate coal and natural gas generation of electricity by 2050 may not be feasible. Natural gas and coal plants might be needed to fuel data centers.

While lifting the nuclear moratorium was a win for reliability and innovation, more state control and added regulations risk undoing those gains. Illinois should embrace policies that make energy cheaper, cleaner and more dependable through competition and regulatory restraint, not deeper political control.

Chicago Bears stadium

The Chicago Bears purchased the former Arlington Park Racetrack in 2023 for $197.2 million. Nearly three years later, the dream of a new stadium is elusive.

Needing state support to develop a new stadium the Bears’ lease at Solider Field expires in 2033, but it can be broken with a penalty.

A 2025 bill would have required teams to win at least 50% of their games in the past 3-in-5 seasons if they want taxpayer funds for a new stadium or to renovate an existing one.

Now, Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren has announced the team’s need to “expand our search and critically evaluate opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region, including Northwest Indiana” citing “no legislative partnership” and a desire for a “world-class stadium.” With that, Illinoisans can expect more political wrangling over a stadium in 2026.

Lawmakers historically pass fewer bills in the second half of session

The Illinois General Assembly operates on two-year sessions. Based on data going back to 2003, lawmakers tend to file and pass fewer bills in the second year.

On average, there have been 6,364 bills filed in the regular session of the first year compared to 3,445 bills filed in regular session of the second year. The trend is similar for how many bills are passed in the first year versus the second.

The first year of a legislative session sees an average of 633 bills passed by both chambers, while the second year sees an average of 451 bills passed.

With elections in November following the second year of session, state lawmakers are more likely to be judged for their actions and more cautious with the bills they file and approve. All Illinois House members and 39 of the 59 Illinois Senate seats will be decided by voters Nov. 3.

Based on two decades worth of trends, Pritzker should expect to see fewer than 400 bills cross his desk in 2026.

But with everything from public pensions to sports stadiums on the agenda for lawmakers this spring, the second half of the 104th Illinois General Assembly could get explosive in Springfield and expensive for taxpayers.