Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is a special kind of arrogant — even by Democratic Party standards. Sure, he’s not the only blowhard in the bunch, but his seething hatred for President Donald Trump, combined with his laughable delusions of a 2028 presidential run, have sent his ego soaring to new heights. It’s almost impressive how a man can be so full of himself while accomplishing so little.
Case in point: on Thursday, Pritzker waddled over to MSNBC’s Trump Derangement Syndrome showcase, The Briefing with Jen Psaki, to commiserate with Biden’s former spin doctor about the supposed “evils” of ICE.
The two spent their time hand-wringing over federal agents who are simply doing their jobs — rounding up illegal immigrants who were effectively invited into the country by Joe Biden himself. It was the usual liberal echo chamber routine: demonize law enforcement, excuse lawbreakers, and pat each other on the back for their moral superiority.
Here’s how the former Biden propagandist kicked things off:
You said on Sunday that you were looking at prosecuting ICE agents who violate the law. What can you tell us about that? What would that look like?
Great question — though let’s be honest, Pritzker absolutely knew it was coming. You could practically see the pre-rehearsed talking points flashing behind his eyes. And yet, even with all that prep time, his answer was anything but cogent:
We don’t know that anybody would be held accountable at the federal level. So we’re looking at all of the options at the local level with county state’s attorneys, with attorneys general to go after people [ICE agents] when they’re breaking Illinois law, when they’re breaking local law.
Okay, let’s pause right there.
To be clear, this all stems from yet another activist judge stepping in to tie law enforcement’s hands. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis — who, shocker, was appointed by Obama — issued a temporary restraining order last week after protesters and so-called “journalists” whined about the use of pepper balls and tear gas outside an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois.
In her ruling, Ellis clutched her pearls over what she called the “indiscriminate” use of crowd-control measures and decided to micromanage federal officers from the comfort of her courtroom. Translation: she’s more worried about the feelings of agitators than the safety of the agents trying to enforce federal law — and it’s patently clear that, given Supreme Court precedent on the matter of federal immigration enforcement, federal immigration enforcement agencies have a right to not only act in according with their duties and mandate, but to protect themselves.
Now, of course, Illinois law piles on even more restrictions — limiting the use of tear gas and other non-lethal crowd-control tools, especially when deployed against so-called “peaceful protests” and “constitutionally protected gatherings.”
If that phrase makes you think back to the “mostly peaceful” riots of 2020, you’re not alone. The irony writes itself.
And here’s the question no one on the left wants to answer: when a crowd is physically confronting ICE agents and actively trying to stop them from carrying out lawful arrests, does that really qualify as a “constitutionally protected gathering”?
So here’s the thing — or at least one of them:
According to the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School — yes, that University of Wisconsin, hardly a conservative stronghold:
As state and local officials increasingly clash with federal officials over immigration enforcement, policing of protests, and much more, they could soon turn to a long-used tactic of state pushback: prosecuting federal agents or officials for violations of state laws.
The bottom line is that states are legally permitted to prosecute federal officials for state crimes—within limits. The limits stem from the federal constitutional principle that states should not be able to undermine federal policy via targeted criminal prosecutions, a doctrine known as Supremacy Clause immunity.
But this principle only applies when federal officials are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties. [Only] when federal officials act beyond the scope of their duties, violate federal law, or behave in an egregious or unwarranted manner, [can] state prosecutions move forward.
Even where charges are ultimately dismissed, states have occasionally used prosecutions as a form of pushback against controversial federal actions.
That last paragraph, above, is the real issue at hand.
While Democrats may not have much luck actually prosecuting ICE agents, that hasn’t stopped them from doing everything possible to sabotage immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Their entire strategy is built around throwing up legal, political, and operational roadblocks — anything to make ICE’s job harder.
They file endless lawsuits, push activist judges to ban basic crowd-control measures like tear gas on “peaceful” mobs, and endlessly amplify every allegation of misconduct, no matter how flimsy.
In other words, it’s the same obstructionist playbook Democrats have been running since day one of Trump’s second term — undermine, delay, and demonize anyone trying to secure the border.
But at some point, all of this distraction will draw the ire of the nation’s highest court, and a majority of justices will put an end to it.
