Democrat-led states are moving to create new ways for residents to sue federal immigration officers and to restrict how agents operate in places such as courthouses, intensifying a legal fight with the administration of President Donald Trump over accountability and the limits of state power.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed legislation in December that supporters describe as the state's version of what is known as a Bivens action, which allows lawsuits against federal immigration agents for certain constitutional claims during civil enforcement activity while preserving qualified immunity defenses.
The Department of Justice has sued Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, calling the new state approach an unconstitutional attempt to regulate federal officers and arguing it threatens the safety of federal personnel.
The Trump administration has argued that federal agents possess "absolute immunity" from state-led prosecutions.
In California, the state Senate has passed Senate Bill 747, known as the No Kings Act, which supporters say would allow people to sue federal officers for constitutional violations in California courts, a model that backers argue could be replicated elsewhere.
Similar proposals are emerging in Colorado, Maryland, and Rhode Island, reflecting a broader effort among Democrat-led states to create remedies where federal law has narrowed them.
In Minnesota, Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers are preparing legislation that would allow residents to seek "civil and monetary damages," saying:
"The proposal is simple: Minnesotans injured by unconstitutional acts should be able to seek a remedy from an independent and impartial court."
The push is fueled by a long-running gap in U.S. law: People can sue state and local officials for constitutional violations under a federal civil rights statute, but similar claims against federal officers are far harder and have been narrowed by the Supreme Court in recent decades.
States are now testing whether they can fill that accountability gap with state-law claims that mirror the kinds of civil rights lawsuits commonly brought against state and local officials.
"Congress has never created an analogous version for federal agents, largely because it sort of didn't have to," Harrison Stark of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School told Axios.
"The result is that you have federal agents who are behaving as if they know it is extremely unlikely that they will face any penalty for violating constitutional rights," he added.
The movement is also drawing support from a new coalition of prosecutors, Fight Against Federal Overreach, which says it will track federal conduct and coordinate accountability strategies across jurisdictions.
"No agency and no officer is above the law," Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner said.
A DOJ spokesperson criticized governors seeking new limits, saying: "Instead of vilifying federal law enforcement when attacks on ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] have surged 1,300%, these radical governors should reverse their state's sanctuary policies and protect their constituents from being brazenly raped, murdered, or set on fire by violent criminals in our country illegally."
The spokesperson added, "This Department of Justice is focused on law and order and public safety, and Americans deserve leadership focused on supporting them, not spewing divisive rhetoric that undermines those sworn to keep them safe."
Theodore Bunker ✉
Theodore Bunker, a Newsmax writer, has more than a decade covering news, media, and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.