The Great Flip: Why Progressives Are Dusting Off the ‘States’ Rights’ Playbook (And Why It Might Fail)

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes—and sometimes, it just completely flips the script just to see if we're paying attention."

If you told a constitutional scholar ten years ago that progressive strongholds like Minnesota and Illinois would be the ones screaming about "States' Rights" and the 10th Amendment in 2026, they might have laughed you out of the lecture hall.

Yet, here we are. In a twist of political irony that only the 2020s could produce, the shield once used to defend segregation is now being polished by Democrats to protect immigrants. Let's dive into the chaos.

🎨 Cartoon Concept: The Tug of War

A giant, tattered scroll labeled "10th Amendment." On the left, ghostly figures of 1960s conservatives are pulling it. On the right, modern 2026 diverse protestors are pulling it back. The Constitution in the middle looks exhausted and confused.

The Context: A Federal Surge Meets the Midwest Shield

It is January 2026. The Trump administration is back, and they aren't being subtle. A massive surge of ICE agents is flooding into cities far from the border—specifically Minneapolis and Chicago. Local officials describe it as a militarized escalation terrifying residents.

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker aren't just holding press conferences; they are suing. Their argument hinges on the 10th Amendment.

💡 Concept Corner: The Constitutional Clash

• The 10th Amendment (The State's Shield): "If the Constitution didn't explicitly give this power to the Feds, it belongs to the States." This is the core of the progressive argument today.
• The Supremacy Clause (The Fed's Hammer): Article VI, Clause 2. It says Federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land." This is the wall the lawsuit is likely to hit.

The Reality Check: Why Experts Are Skeptical

This historical flip is fascinating narrative fodder, but does it hold up in court? Legal experts are pouring cold water on the idea.

Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, reviewed these lawsuits and his verdict is brutal: "Close to completely meritless."

Why? Because of that pesky Supremacy Clause. While the 10th Amendment is a nice shield, the Supremacy Clause is a sledgehammer. Historically, the Federal government has nearly absolute authority over immigration enforcement. Honig notes there is "no example... of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state."

🎨 Cartoon Concept: The Legal Dead End

A snowy road in Minnesota. A car labeled "State Lawsuit" is speeding towards a massive concrete wall labeled "SUPREMACY CLAUSE." A traffic sign nearby reads "U-Turn Only."

Political Theater or Legal Revolution?

If the chance of winning is near zero, why sue?

Perhaps it's about the delay. Perhaps it's about the optics. Or maybe, just maybe, they are hoping to find a "frontier issue"—a legal gray area that hasn't been tested yet. A judge in Minnesota has already declined a temporary restraining order, but called the issues "frontier." In legal speak, that's polite for "You're asking for something new."

The chessboard has been rotated 180 degrees. Blue states are now the champions of sovereignty. Red states are the enforcers of Federal might. Whether this lawsuit succeeds or fails, one thing is certain: The definition of American federalism is being rewritten in real-time.

---

📢 Editor's Take

It's a brilliant political maneuver to use the 10th Amendment, but legally? It's a Hail Mary pass into a hurricane. The Supreme Court has historically sided with the Feds on immigration. But in the 2020s, expecting the unexpected is the only safe bet.

What do you think? Are States the last line of defense for human rights, or is Federal law supreme regardless of the zip code? Let's argue in the comments below.

*Disclaimer: This article provides a legal and historical analysis based on current events. It does not constitute legal advice.*

📺 Watch the 60-Second Summary

⬆️ Click to play the visual briefing