But this is a very narrow, small ruling. [You may see my prior backgrounder on it, here.]

Yet to be decided are all the merits claims. And she’s right, Mr. Ellison cannot (relying solely on the “authority” of the federal Tenth Amendment) simply bar ICE from the state. If acting lawfully (which it is undisputed, they have NOT been so acting), they do have a right to enforce the immigration statutes. If acting lawfully. Much more to come, but here is her Saturday opinion and order. It is a well-taken position, on bedrock law:

…The Court pauses to observe what it is not deciding. At this stage, the Court makes no final determination on the merits of any claims asserted by Plaintiffs. Nor does the Court offer any opinion about the wisdom of Operation Metro Surge.

And the legality of many of the specific actions taken by federal agents during the operation is not before the Court in this case. Instead, the Court only decides whether to grant the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction halting a federal law enforcement operation based upon the Tenth Amendment.

In answering this question, the Court must view Plaintiffs’ claims through the lens of the specific legal framework they invoke, and, having done so, finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied….

Now you know. Smiles… baby girls here tonight!

नमस्ते