GEOFF BENNETT: A 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.

MARY MCCORD, Former Justice Department Official: Sure.

My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: 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?

MARY MCCORD: 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 in the way it's been implemented has violated 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 10th 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 that might even have more undocumented immigrants or the crisis of undocumented immigrants might be greater are not being targeted this way.

GEOFF BENNETT: And if the judge were to grant Minnesota's request for a halt or some restriction on ICE's operations, what would that look like in a real way?

MARY MCCORD: Well, that's a tough question to answer, because the complaint asks for a lot of relief.

At the heart, what Minnesota wants is for ICE to pull out of this surge, not necessarily every ICE agent to leave, but the surge to end.

And that's an extraordinary relief, because, of course, the federal government argues that, under principles of supremacy of federal law, a state can't force them to stop enforcing federal law and that a judge would not be able to do that either.

So it really does pit these interests.

And that relief would be pretty extraordinary.

There are lesser forms of relief, though, that the judge might be considering, because she's taking this under advisement, which are things like enjoining violations of Fourth Amendment by not racially profiling when they engage in stops, enjoining them from going into sensitive locations like hospitals and schools and day cares, things like that.

So there's a whole sort of variety of relief that she could grant if she agrees with the legal arguments that have been made.

GEOFF BENNETT: And on the flip side, if the court sides with the Justice Department and the Trump administration, what precedent might that set for states that challenge federal immigration enforcement and surges like the ones we've seen in Minneapolis?

MARY MCCORD: Yes, this case has been different than so many of the other cases that have been brought in places like Portland and in Illinois, Chicago, when it comes to how ICE agents are actually performing their duties.

A lot of those cases, like another case actually that's in Minnesota right now, the Tincher case, those have been brought on behalf of protesters or on behalf of people who have been stopped as suspected being here undocumented.

And those are making very specific other types of claims.

And this would have no impact on those lawsuits because the claims made by the state here are very different, these 10th Amendment claims.

The other claims are much more personal to the individuals who have been subject to unconstitutional treatment.

So I think that you would still see those types of lawsuits in Minnesota, like there is one ongoing, the Tincher case, or in other states, if we see the type of excessive force and overreach and unconstitutional practices that we are seeing by ICE in Minnesota and that we saw in Portland and that we saw in Chicago and in L.A.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Mary, based on the arguments that you have heard and the legal issues at stake, are there any clues about how this judge might frame her decision?

MARY MCCORD: Yes, I was not able to listen to it today because I was working on other things, but I understand that she did ask pointed questions along the nature of what we have been talking about, about how to balance the interest of the federal government and the Supremacy Clause and the interests of the states and the powers reserved to them under the 10th Amendment.

And so she's going to think long and hard about, I think, the legal arguments here before she answers her ruling.

And I don't really want to speculate about that because that wouldn't be fair to the parties.

GEOFF BENNETT: Understood.

Mary McCord, our thanks to you, as always.