>> Illinois and Minnesota officials are separately suing the Trump administration over the enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents.

The lawsuits seek broader limits on the conduct of immigration agents in both states.

It comes after last week's fatal shooting of Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole.

Good by an ICE agent following the shooting.

Vice president JD Vance said the agent was, quote, protected by absolute immunity.

>> The president here is very simple.

You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action.

That's a federal issue.

That guy's protected by absolute immunity.

He was doing his job.

The unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official could actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity.

I've never seen anything like that.

It would get tossed out by a judge.

>> Joining us now with more is Chicago.

Can't college of Law Professor Harold Credit?

Welcome back.

Harold, A so, you know, going off of what we just heard, the vice president say they're do federal immigration agents have absolute immunity from prosecution.

>> The vice president simply wrong.

There'd been a number of cases and to shun pronouncements on that say that the individuals are not absolutely immune and Supreme Court decisions over help them.

That being said the road to a prosecution by state official is tough.

And obviously we're not going to see federal prosecution in this administration that there could be a federal prosecution in a subsequent administration.

And then there are some civil damages routes that are available as well.

So those who was horrific can't But there are some avenues available for some kind of accountability for what the ice agent did.

>> Both Illinois and middle law, Minnesota lawsuits are federal case is raising some potential conflicts with the U.S.

Constitution's supremacy clause.

What is the supremacy clause and how might it affect lawsuits?

>> Under Constitution, if there's a clash between state and federal law, federal law prevails.

So going back to Minnesota incident, it's clear that the federal government has the ability to have ICE agents in Minnesota or in Illinois and that even if there is a state law to the contrary to federal law would win out because of the supremacy sitting talking.

We only in Minnesota are saying is that the use of these aggressive tactics patrols interrogations, the use of tear gas is simply trying bludgeon the state's into changing their form, a government, which is also protected under the Constitution in our 10th Amendment.

So what the lawsuit are saying is that this use of aggressive tactics are trying to browbeat the states into abandoning come soon worry all seas for centuries city policies to protect migrant within the communities and then the use of tactics to effect.

thing is actually at SoFi.

We should the Constitution because the rights protected under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

So it's a pretty those are both president claims we don't know how many will turn out because at some point there's a clash between the supremacy clause and the tech, the mandate.

And so we're seeing that played out in both states currently.

>> So in Illinois's lawsuit, state attorney Attorney General Kwame Raoul, he wrote that immigration agents, quote, have rampaged for months through Chicago and surrounding areas.

Lawless Lee, stopping interrogating and arresting residents and attacking them with chemical weapons.

Can the state make the argument that immigration agents are breaking the law in the use of chemical weapons?

And so on.

>> that's not what this loss isn't about There may be other aspects of the lawsuit to say that there are illegal tactics and there can be an injunction.

And indeed, Judge just well go talked about the illegal activities, potentially illegal activities of the Border Patrol agents.

But this is more of a wide-ranging on Presenteeism mentioned lawsuit saying that this is really campaign that the federal government is using to try to force the stage to change their laws.

And when the federal government does that, there's arguably in violation of the rights reserved to the states under our federal constitution.

So this isn't about the use tear gas per se for use use of interrogation tactics.

really about using these kinds of tactics to source.

>> states to give her policies.

Sanctuary city policies that the find very important order to protect and then make safe the communities in the states.

>> Illinois's lawsuit also seeks to halt immigration agents from using such tactics as tear gas and other chemical weapons on non resisting individuals and from entering private property without a warrant or consent.

Does that part of the lawsuit?

Is it not run into the same problem that the Chicago Headline Club and other plaintiffs ran into with their case, which is still in a federal court right now because a judge decided that she wanted to hold off before granting the motion to dismiss.

>> I mean, may.

But difference is, is 10th amendment rights reserved to the states part of the lawsuit.

That's what makes this a unique vehicle for trying to test or challenge the policies.

Obviously we have individuals were injured, including when a good whose family I just want to be there soon.

says there is no state prosecution for the agent.

I mean, those of us who've seen the videos that we find them no idea why the ice agent opened fire when he did what in water level went Illinois's trying to do is say, each individual or abuse of discretion.

There's a trigger-happy ICE agent or Border Patrol agent.

Maybe they can be sued under tort claims were for constitutional violation, other problems with as possible.

But what the this lawsuit is saying as school, this is a pressure tactic that it is being used against the state in order for the states to change laws to be more friendly.

2 federal immigration for Smith.

And that's the week.

Colonel of this law.

And that's different and what the headline Club and others brought in the fire lawsuit.

And so wind its way through the courts.

But it's an interesting challenge.

>> Of course, one that will keep an eye on as it does make