Cameron Abrams & Ilya Somin: Should ICE Be Strengthened or Restrained?

Summary

Future of Freedom – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Cameron Abrams & Ilya Somin: Should ICE Be Strengthened or Restrained?
Host: Scott Bertram
Guests: Cameron Abrams (Texas Public Policy Foundation), Ilya Somin (Cato Institute)
Date: February 18, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Future of Freedom dives into the heated national debate over federal immigration enforcement, with a focus on the recent ICE operation and subsequent pullout in Minneapolis. Host Scott Bertram moderates a civil, in-depth conversation with Cameron Abrams, who advocates for robust federal enforcement, and Ilya Somin, who emphasizes constitutional limits and protection of civil liberties. The discussion covers competing moral frameworks, federal vs. state authority, political and legal strategies for and against ICE operations, and the consequences of current enforcement policies.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Recent ICE Surge and Pullback in Minneapolis

Cameron Abrams’ Perspective (01:00–02:27)

• Views the end of the ICE surge as a win for the administration, highlighting record arrests and deportations.
• Emphasizes the need for careful resource allocation, noting that “this is a national security threat, so they have to allocate those resources in the best way possible.”

Ilya Somin’s Perspective (16:09–16:42)

• Sees the retreat as evidence that a “combination of litigation and political action has forced Trump to back down in Minneapolis.”
• Argues this demonstrates that judicial and political resistance can effectively check government overreach.

---

2. The Role of Social Media and Instant Judgment

Cameron Abrams (02:49–05:30)

• Describes the challenge of fragmented, real-time narratives:
  • “We live in a social media age that requires instant judgment on fragmented information... It puts a lot of pressure on just an average citizen to understand what is going on.”
• Notes that media-fueled outrage can inflame situations, sometimes distorting the facts and escalating tensions on the ground.

---

3. Political Rhetoric and Public Officials’ Responsibility

Cameron Abrams (05:52–08:36)

• Blames inflammatory rhetoric from "blue state governors and blue city mayors" for “fanning the flames,” creating a “permission structure for these protesters and agitators to go out on the streets and cause chaos.”
• Urges return to democratic processes: “If they are opposed, they can vote for the candidate that is going to roll back these efforts.”

---

4. Morality, Identity, and Polarization

Cameron Abrams (08:58–10:22)

• Expresses concern that politics is “a game of tribalism now…It’s just become more clear as we become more divided and by the information that we’re consuming on social media.”
• Argues for individual responsibility: “It takes effort and it takes the ability to see through the illusions that is being offered via the social media algorithms.”

---

5. Justice and Competing Moral Frameworks

Cameron Abrams (12:15–14:13)

• References Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory:
  • “Those on the left...are much more reliant on a care/harm principle…those on the right…rely on fairness and a larger scope.”
• Suggests the concept of justice is shaped by whether one's empathy extends globally (as on the left) or is more locally/nationally focused (as on the right).

---

6. Federal Enforcement, Chaos, and State Cooperation

Cameron Abrams (10:56–11:54)

• Asserts that chaos corresponds to lack of state cooperation and inflamed rhetoric.
• Calls for concessions and cooperation, reiterating, “this is federal immigration law that is attempting to be enforced, which is superseding of the state laws.”

---

7. 10th Amendment: Federal Authority vs. State Rights

Ilya Somin (17:51–18:11, 18:11–20:09)

• Details the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering doctrine: “the federal government cannot take over their resources, their employees, and so forth.”
• Cites Printz v. United States and underscores that states cannot be forced to assist with federal immigration enforcement (sanctuary laws).

Quote:

“The doctrine here…is that the 10th Amendment…protects state and local governments against commandeering by the federal government.”
— Ilya Somin (18:11)

---

8. The Constitutionality of ICE Tactics and Coercion

Ilya Somin (20:39–22:44)

• Argues the administration’s actions amount to unconstitutional coercion:
  • “They're using illegal action against citizens of the state, disrupting its economy…for the purpose of compelling them to give up their sanctuary policies.”
• Uses analogy: “If the mafia…say, 'We’re going to break your legs unless you do what we want.' That’s extortion...This is very similar.”

---

9. Legal Nuances: Bright Lines and Government Motives

Ilya Somin (23:06–24:59, 27:20–28:52)

• Acknowledges it’s hard for courts to draw bright lines, relying on standards and intent.
• Says openly coercive motives and illegal activities should tip the legal balance.

Quote:

“Many legal principles are standards rather than bright line rules...But motive is a relevant consideration, and there’s lots of precedent.”
— Ilya Somin (27:20)

---

10. Nullification and Constitutional Limits

Ilya Somin (26:06–26:56)

• Clarifies the difference between refusing to participate (allowed) and nullification (not allowed).
• Cites Supreme Court precedents upholding state refusal to enforce federal law.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Cameron Abrams on Social Media and Public Judgment:
  “There are things that are happening outside of that context that we see in a 10 second clip…It puts a lot of pressure on just an average citizen to understand what is going on.” (02:49)

• Abrams on Democratic Processes:
  “The best way to resolve that conflict is at the voting booth…to go out onto the streets and act violently, I think is antithetical to what we’re trying to promote here in America.” (07:37)

• Ilya Somin on Federal Coercion:
  “They’re using illegal action against citizens of the state, disrupting its economy, disrupting its government operations, for the purpose of compelling them to give up their sanctuary policies. This is actually more blatantly coercive than some of the things…struck down under the 10th Amendment Anti-Commandeering doctrine in the past.” (21:45)

• Ilya Somin on Legal Standards:
  “Many legal principles are standards rather than bright line rules…But motive is a relevant consideration, and there’s lots of precedent…which say the government motive can be considered here.” (27:20)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:34 – 02:27: Cameron Abrams explains why the ICE pullback is a win for the administration.
• 05:52 – 08:36: Abrams discusses political rhetoric and the primacy of democratic processes.
• 12:15 – 14:13: Abrams details moral foundations and competing visions of justice.
• 16:09 – 17:51: Ilya Somin introduces the role of litigation and political action in limiting federal power.
• 18:11 – 20:09: Somin summarizes the 10th Amendment’s application to the ICE case.
• 20:39 – 22:44: Somin argues that federal tactics in Minnesota are unconstitutional coercion.
• 23:06 – 24:59: Somin explores the legal complexities of defining coercion and legitimate enforcement.
• 26:06 – 26:56: Somin clarifies the line between state refusal to cooperate and illegal nullification.

---

Conclusion

This episode synthesizes two sharply contrasting worldviews on the proper scope of immigration enforcement and constitutional limits.

• Cameron Abrams insists that security and democratic legitimacy underpin federal action, cautioning against media-driven outrage and advocating for political, not street, solutions.
• Ilya Somin presses constitutional boundaries, arguing that recent ICE activities may cross into unlawful coercion and trample on the autonomy reserved for states under the 10th Amendment.

The episode provides thoughtful, nuanced insight for anyone seeking to understand the underlying legal, moral, and political debates shaping the future of immigration enforcement in America.

Transcript

[Ilya Soman]

Foreign.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome to FUTURE of Freedom. I'm your host, Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of Franklin News Foundation. To support this show, go to franklinnews.org donate we bring you interviews today from different sides of the debate over immigration enforcement actions across the country and as conditions on the ground change rapidly. We'll note both these interviews were conducted on February 12th of 2026. In a little bit, we'll be joined by Ilya Soman, B. Kenneth Simon, Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and Professor of Law at George Mason University. First, we talk with Cameron Abrams, policy Analyst for Next Generation Texas at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. You can find them at texaspolicy.com, cameron on X amronsabrams Cameron, thanks so much for joining us.

[Cameron Abrams]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking today about what we've seen unfold in Minneapolis, Chicago, other locations across the country when it comes to ICE enforcement efforts. I did want to begin with a bit of news that is breaking as we record this conversation, and that is the announcement that ICE will end the surge in Minneapolis. Do you consider this a mission accomplished, perhaps, for the administration for the enforcement efforts, or is this a win for protesters in Minnesota?

[Cameron Abrams]

Well, I would say it's a win for the administration. I think, as Tom Homan has stated, there's been a record number of arrests and deportations under Trump's first year here in his second stinton office. There was a number of successes in many of these metropolitan cities and in Minnesota specifically, the administration has finite resources. I know they've continued to allocate funds to expanding ICE and DHS operations. But this is a national security threat. If the surge is being pulled back in one city, we could see a surge in another city. Again, this is a national security threat, so they have to allocate those resources in the best way possible.

[Scott Bertram]

Cameron, you wrote a [e-mail] about the Minnesota shooting. A tale of two narratives is what you call it. You say video clips, social media postings demand instant moral judgment. How has that aspect changed public reactions to law enforcement encounters compared to, say, even 10 years ago?

[Cameron Abrams]

Yeah, we live in a social media age that requires instant judgment on fragmented information without the proper context being afforded to the individual being confronted with these images and videos. And so it puts a lot of pressure on just an average citizen to understand what is going on. There's so many conflicting narratives, whether it be on social media or on the mainstream media, the corporate media. The difficulty moving forward is both. How does the Individual, meaning those listening to this podcast and us talking here, how do we understand what is the proper orientation for the administration and the country moving forward? I think what the administration can lean on is they won the White House with, with the popular vote and on the firm message of mass deportations. And so as we go forward trying to understand what is going on with these mass deportation efforts, I think it's best for us as average citizens in America to try and take in the full context, the full scope of what is going on. Because illegal immigration in the United States isn't just an issue that's been occurring over the past four years or even over the past 10 years. It's been happening for a long time. And when we're talking about what's happening in Minneapolis, there are individual clips that we have all seen in regards to the enforcement actions by these agents. But there are things that are happening outside of that context that we see in a 10 second clip. There is blockades being set up by these agitators, there's whistles, there are protests that are occurring outside of their hotels where they're trying to sleep. There are signal chats where these protesters and agitators are communicating in encrypted messaging, identifying these agents, following them all day, doxing them, releasing personal information. And that can create a very volatile situation. And so there's many overlapping factors to try and understand why certain things are occurring on the ground in many of these metros.

[Scott Bertram]

Let's talk about a few of those factors. One is that we see local officials like Mayor Fry in Minneapolis, state officials like the governor. So to openly condemn ICE in real time, what responsibility should elected leaders have to avoid inflaming these situations that perhaps maybe they don't fully understand?

[Cameron Abrams]

Our political rhetoric, especially from many of these blue state governors and blue city mayors, has only fanned the flames of what is occurring in these situations. Again, this requires taking in the full context of what is going on here. And this isn't just about what's happening with ice. This is a long standing rhetorical ploy by these governors and mayors where they call Trump a dictator, they call ICE agents the Gestapo, they call Trump supporters Nazis. So they are creating a rhetorical frame for those who are more sympathetic to that point of view, essentially providing a permission structure for these protesters and agitators to go out on the streets and cause chaos and violently resist what is happening in regards to trying to enforce federal immigration law, which is what the administration is attempting to do with sending these agents to these cities in these States, the political rhetoric does not aid in trying to quell the disruptions that we've been seeing on the ground. It only adds fire to the flames.

[Scott Bertram]

You emphasize and mention that these immigration enforcement efforts reflect Democratic outcomes via election. How should members of the public, maybe those who are most inclined to be activists, be protesters? How should perhaps normal Americans voters weigh maybe some moral objections to what's happening, to the fact that these are policies that were in fact enacted through free and fair elections?

[Cameron Abrams]

Yeah, it's difficult for just the average person to parse through what is happening. They're getting conflicting information from the left, from the right, and ultimately this is the result of a democratic process, like I mentioned in my piece and you mentioned here now. And so the best way for the average person, if they are supportive of the administration and their efforts, or if they're opposed, the best way to resolve that conflict is at the voting booth. And if they are supportive, they can vote for the next candidate for president to continue these efforts. If they're opposed, they can vote for the candidate that is going to roll back these efforts. So I think we should encourage Democratic participation at the voting booth. But to go out onto the streets and act violently, I think is antithetical to what we're trying to promote here in America.

[Scott Bertram]

You suggest in this piece over TexasPolicy.com that many political conflicts now aren't policy disagreements, but moral showdowns. If politics now becomes primarily about moral identity rather than persuasion, can we continue to function? If we stop talking to each other and stop trying to persuade each other through, through politics, what next?

[Cameron Abrams]

Well, I think what we're seeing in the increasing bifurcation of our partisan affiliations, this has been happening for decades, and there's plenty of research that supports that claim I just made. I think politics is a game of tribalism now. And I think it's just become more clear as we become more divided and by the information that we're consuming on social media. And so if we are to come together, I think that would require many of us to step back and be more objective in our rational assessment of what is going on. As I explained in my piece, there is the reality on the ground, but then there's. There's the totality. And so that takes a concerted effort by the individual to take in a wide variety of information and attempt to parse out what is true, what is false, what is right, what is wrong. And that takes education on the individual. And so it takes effort and it takes the ability to see through the illusions that is being offered via the social media algorithms. It's difficult, but I do think it's possible.

[Scott Bertram]

Cameron Abrams with U.S. policy Analyst for Next Generation Texas at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Some, like the mayor, like the governor, are saying, look, maybe you have some good intentions, but the chaos you're causing should be more than enough evidence to get you to stop those activities. If there is conflict that arises here, rather than perhaps increased order on the ground, where should that priority land? How far can you go in enforcement before that chaos becomes a real problem or something to deal with?

[Cameron Abrams]

Well, I think it just comes to the extent to which these blue state governors and blue state mayors want to establish order in these cities. It was only after Trump had a conversation with Walz that there was cooperation between local law enforcement and these federal agents. Prior to that, there wasn't the cooperation there. And so is there going to be concessions that are going to have to be made by these blue states and the mayors in these blue cities? Yes. And then it also will require the rhetoric to be toned down because again, this is federal immigration law that is attempting to be enforced, which is superseding of the state laws. So there needs to be cooperation if order needs to be established. And that's what the people voted for.

[Scott Bertram]

Do you think that we still share a common story about what justice looks like? Those protesters on the ground say justice means these people who have been here for decades can stay. Justice for others says they broke the law. We've got to follow through on prosecution, punishment, deportation. Can we find some sort of common story about what justice should be?

[Cameron Abrams]

I think that's the crux of the conversation and the disagreement here. We see, I think a great frame to view this through is Jonathan Haidt's work in the Moral Foundation's theory where those who more on the left side of the political aisle, which you would call liberals, are much more reliant on a care harm principle in regards to where they rely on moral foundations, whereas those on the right or have a more conservative bent rely on fairness and they rely on a larger scope of these moral foundations. And when we're speaking of attempting to understand what is justice in these situations, it's also in regard to scale, where we see the proximity of empathy being expanded globally. For those on the left, we often hear these are future Americans or anyone can be an American, whereas those on the right say we have Americans here in America already that need to be protected by these criminal illegal aliens that have entered our country. And so it's about understanding the aperture of what justice means? Is it confined to the family, the locality, the community, or is it more of a view that is encompassing the entire world, the entire globe? And so I think that conversation is ongoing and I think a good frame to view it through is through that moral foundation theory, but also the results of the last election where people are having more of a view of putting America first, putting Americans first in regards to who should be protected, in regards to how justice is carried out.

[Scott Bertram]

Do you think perhaps we're entering a period where federal law enforcement actions will increasingly be met with organized resistance on the streets? If so, what measures can be taken? How do you turn the temperature down on those sorts of activities?

[Cameron Abrams]

Well, I think it's both a yes and I think where there could be, yes, increasing actions on the ground by those who are resisting federal law enforcement. But encompassed within the word law enforcement is enforcement. And so it requires the federal administration to have the will to enforce the law. And if there is going to be future actions similar to Minnesota carried out in other blue states and blue cities, then there needs to be the will to carry out the enforcement, but also offer the rhetorical framing in which it is seen as carrying out the proper mode of justice, like we just talked about, that is supportive of what the American people voted for.

[Scott Bertram]

Cameron Abrams is policy analyst for Next Generation Texas at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas policy.com you can also find him on X Amron Sabrams. Cameron, thank you so much for joining us today on Future of Freedom.

[Cameron Abrams]

Thank you for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Now to hear another side of the discussion about immigration enforcement actions across the country, we talk with Ilya Soman be Kenneth Simon, chair in Constitutional Studies at The Cato Institute, cato.org Also professor of law at George Mason University. And you can find him on X ilyasoman. Ilya, thanks so much for joining us.

[Ilya Soman]

Thank you very much for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking today about some of what we've seen unfold in Minneapolis and Chicago and elsewhere. But I want to start by asking about news that is happening as we are talking, essentially, which is that the administration, the Trump administration has announced a pullout of the ICE enforcement efforts in Minnesota. You've said that this combination of litigation and political action has forced Trump to back down in Minneapolis. Is that a prescription, a recipe to perhaps curb future abuses of government power?

[Ilya Soman]

Yes, absolutely it is. I wrote an article last year in the Unpopulous, building on some of my own earlier work and that of other scholars, which said that when we're dealing with abuses of constitutional rights and some other types of abuse of government power. What is often effective, not always, but often, is to work on both litigation and also political mobilization. Litigation sometimes can be more immediately effective than trying to pass new legislation, and it can highlight abuses and make public opinion more aware of them. On the other hand, when you engage in political action, that can also make victory in court easier. Because even though ideally maybe it shouldn't be this way, judges are more willing often to rule against the government when they feel they have public opinion behind them. And there are many historical examples of this dynamic, ranging from the civil rights movement to the property rights movement, the gun rights movement, the movement for same sex marriage, and others. And I think what recently happened in Minnesota is probably another example of the same dynamic.

[Scott Bertram]

Ilya, you've written in a few places about the 10th Amendment issues at play, perhaps in Minneapolis. In simple terms, how does the 10th amendment apply to what was happening on the ground in Minnesota? Is which? What power do states believe Minnesota believe the federal government is trying to take from them?

[Ilya Soman]

Sure, so the doctrine here is not quite as simple as we would ideally like it to be. But the basic idea is this. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions written primarily by conservative justices like Scalia and Alito, has said that the 10th Amendment, among other things, it protects state and local governments against commandeering by the federal government. That is, the federal government cannot take over their resources, their employees, and so forth. And in particular, it cannot force them to help the federal government enforce federal law. That comes from several cases, most notably the 1997 case of Prince versus the United States, which involved an effort to for state and local governments to help enforce federal gun control laws. And the Supreme Court said, no, that violates the 10th Amendment. Now, in Minnesota, what has been happening, or at least had been happening until perhaps yesterday, was that they had sent some 3,000 immigration enforcement agents there to wreak havoc in all sorts of ways. And one of their announced goals, maybe even their primary goal, was to force the state of Minnesota and Minnesota local governments to give up their sanctuary laws. What sanctuary laws do is they restrict state and local government assistance to the federal government with respect to immigration enforcement, much like other state and local governments lichen Prince restrict assistance to federal gun control enforcement, and Minnesota had filed a lawsuit arguing that this violates the 10th amendment. The case is still in its relatively early stages, and I'm not yet sure whether it will be mooted out by the coming withdrawal. However, I believe, and I wrote a couple articles about this, that the case has merit.

[Scott Bertram]

I want to ask about a couple of details about things you mentioned there. One, supporters of this deployment to Minneapolis might say, look, no one's forcing Minnesota officials to help ice. This is the commandeering point you made. Federal agents are there. ICE officials are there. They're enforcing federal law themselves. In fact, in a lot of cases we heard them say, we're not having local authorities help us in our activities here. So why isn't that delineation the end of the constitutional question here?

[Ilya Soman]

For several reasons. One is several high ranking administration officials, including Tom Homan, the so called border czar, had said that part of their purpose is in fact to force Minnesota and the local governments to change their sanctuary policies. Second, as Minnesota and the local government showed in their complaint that they filed in court, the IC and other federal enforcers have been directly disrupting various federal government. I'm sorry, various state and local government operations, including public schools, police and others. And third, many of the activities of ic, CBP and the other agencies are also shown in court have themselves been illegal in various ways. They violate the fourth Amendment, they engage in illegal racial profiling, they be legally shot to protesters, and so on. And when you engage in illegal action for the purpose of coercing state and local governments, that is surely a violation of the 10th Amendment in the same way that extortion is illegal. And that's true even if some of that illegal action in its immediate instance is directed not against the states but against private parties, because harming private parties in this way is a way of leveraging the state. So to make an analogy, if the mafia comes to you and say, we're going to break your legs unless you do what we want. That's extortion. It is equally extortion if they say, we're not going to break your legs, we're going to break your neighbor's legs or your cousin's legs or something like that. And this is very similar. They're using illegal action against citizens of the state, disrupting its economy, disrupting its government operations, for the purpose of compelling them to give up their sanctuary policies. This is actually more blatantly coercive than than some of the things that have been struck down under the 10th Amendment Anti commandeering doctrine in the past.

[Scott Bertram]

In one of the pieces you wrote, Ilya, the ruling denying a motion for a preliminary injunction, you referenced the judge there struggled a bit with where to draw that line. How many agents, how much disruption is too much on the ground? If there's no real bright line here, how should courts realistically evaluate cases like this one? Yeah.

[Ilya Soman]

So the judge did struggle with that. I would say a couple things. One is many legal principles are standards rather than bright line rules and does do not have a completely precise line. We see that all the time, both in constitutional law and elsewhere. For example, think about the fourth Amendment standard which says you can only engage in reasonable searches and seizures. What is the line between a reasonable and an unreasonable search? It's sometimes hard to tell. And the same thing here. There might not be an absolute precise line between legitimate law enforcement and coercion of state and local governments. But I would think that there are two lines that can be helpful, even though they don't perfectly give us a 100% precise resolution. One is when the coercive action is itself illegal in other ways, then that surely violates the 10th Amendment. If the federal government doesn't have the right to do it in the first place for other reasons, and that's allowing 10th amendment lawsuit. And here we have massive illegal activities, as Judge Menendez herself found in the very same ruling that you just referenced. Second, when the government openly announces the federal government that their purpose is coercion and that that is a central objective of particular operation, then I think that's enough to invalidate that entire operation and to strike down all of the deployment of resources that's involved in that operation. In this case, the so called Operation Metro Surge. I admit that there can be more subtle cases where things are less clear, and that's an inevitable aspect of 10th Amendment doctrine and lots of other legal doctrine where we have a standard as opposed to a precise one.

[Scott Bertram]

Mayor Fry in Minneapolis, Governor Walz in Minnesota, both have talked about that the chaos on the ground, the agents and the presence of ICE officials are causing the chaos we see on the ground. Is that in and of itself an argument that enters this legal ecosystem in some way? Should we care from a legal perspective about what, you know, chaos, quote, unquote, is being caused on the ground by the operation?

[Ilya Soman]

I guess chaos is an imprecise term that can mean various different things. But if the nature of the chaos is that the federal agents are doing things that are illegal, if they're targeting innocent civilians, and if their objective is to coerce the state and local governments, then yes, it is illegal. I can imagine perhaps other situations where something might be described as chaos, where it might not be legally relevant, but in this case it is.

[Cameron Abrams]

All right.

[Scott Bertram]

There has been some discussion too about whether or not this would constitute a state attempting to nullify federal law. Federal law enforcement, how do you respond to that concern, sure.

[Ilya Soman]

So nullification is when a state government does what some Southern states did before the Civil War and during the civil rights movement is when they say that a federal law is simply invalid under territory and prevent, you know, and actively work perhaps to violate the law or to prevent its enforcement. On the other hand, here we don't have that. What we have is states simply refusing to help the federal government in some respects. And that not only is not nullification, as I said before, it's protected by the Supreme Court's precedent on the 10th Amendment, known as the anti commandeering precedents. And those precedents actually were, for the most part, written by conservative Supreme Court justices like Justice Scalia.

[Scott Bertram]

I do want to ask, too, if courts are starting to evaluate the federal motive here. We're trying to determine whether the enforcement is really about coercion. And I know you would say this is fairly explicit in this particular case, but should we welcome that invitation for judges to perhaps in the future police a political strategy rather than pure constitutional violations?

[Ilya Soman]

So in many cases, whether there is a constitutional violation depends in part on the government's motive. That is not a new thing. There are precedents going back all the way to the 19th century which indicate that because, for instance, there are constitutional doctrines which prevent discrimination. But they prevent discrimination not only, say, when the government explicitly classifies on the basis of race, but when the government finds that there's something that correlates with race and they choose to discriminate on that basis, but the underlying purpose of discrimination based on race. Similarly, when it comes to something like unconstitutional coercion, when the government is doing something, it matters whether the government is presenting a kind of quid pro quo like we'll stop breaking legs or we'll stop doing something else harmful if you give up your sanctuary policy or do something else that we wouldn't have a right to coerce. So I'm not saying motive is the only relevant consideration here. What the government is actually doing also matters. But motive is a relevant consideration, and there's lots of precedent, albeit mostly in other areas of constitutional doctrine which say the government motive can be considered here. The only reason why we don't have much 10th Amendment precedent on that is because, as Judge Menendez found, what the government here is doing is actually unprecedented.

[Scott Bertram]

Ilya Somanez, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. You can find [e-mail], or also professor of Law at George Mason University and on X. Ilya Soman, Ilya, thanks so much. For joining us today on Future of Freedom.

[Ilya Soman]

Thank you for having me.

[Scott Bertram]

We thank both of our guests for joining us Cameron Abrams, policy analyst for Next Generation Texas at the Texas Public Policy foundation at Cameron S. Abrams on X and Ilya Soman, the Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and and professor of Law at George Mason University on X. Ilya Soman to find additional episodes of Future of Freedom, go to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, a production of Franklin News Foundation.