Faubus, Walz, and the Old American Sport of “Federalism When Convenient”

America has a charming habit: we rediscover “states’ rights” every time the federal government starts doing something our faction hates. The principle stays in the closet until it matches the outfit.

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus staged the classic: state power deployed to frustrate federal authority, wrapped in the language of “public order.” When nine Black students attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School, Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to block them, claiming he was preventing violence. The federal government responded the way the Constitution says it can: President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, federalized the Arkansas National Guard, and sent federal troops, most famously the 101st Airborne, to enforce the court’s desegregation order.

Fast-forward to Minneapolis in late 2025 and early 2026, and you can see a modern version of the same political muscle memory: local and city leaders attempting to distance themselves from federal enforcement, this time on immigration, while portraying Washington as the destabilizing outsider. Minneapolis has a long-running “separation ordinance” restricting city cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; the city explicitly tells residents that MPD does not work with ICE on immigration operations and “cannot interfere” with them. The City Council voted in December 2025 to strengthen that ordinance, further prohibiting city employees from enforcing federal immigration laws. Mayor Jacob Frey also signed an executive order blocking civil immigration enforcement from using certain city-owned parking facilities. And Minneapolis officials and local reporting have emphasized that Minnesota is not a “sanctuary state” by state law; this is essentially a city-level regime.

Then came the accelerant: during a major federal immigration operation, an ICE officer fatally shot Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, triggering intense protests and a national political brawl over the facts. Governor Tim Walz directed state agencies to mobilize resources. He put the National Guard on alert in case it was needed to support public safety, amid public outrage and distrust of the federal response.

So what are the parallels worth exposing?

1) “Keeping the peace” is the universal alibi

Faubus said the Guard was necessary to prevent tumult; the point was to delay or stop compliance while sounding responsible.
Minneapolis leaders frame non-cooperation as necessary for community trust and safety, especially amid heightened federal activity.
Different eras, different issues, same political move: order as a rhetorical shield for resistance.

2) The tactic shifted from blockade to non-cooperation, but the intent rhymes

Faubus used physical force to obstruct a federal court order. Minneapolis uses legal and administrative tools to keep city personnel and property from assisting federal immigration enforcement.
In practice, both approaches aim at the same outcome: making federal policy harder to execute on the ground.

3) The political payoff is the same: turn a constitutional dispute into a tribal signal

Faubus became a hero to segregationists by visibly “standing up to Washington.” Minneapolis leaders win plaudits in progressive circles by visibly “standing up to ICE.” That is not deep constitutional philosophy; it is coalition maintenance with flags.

4) Both invite escalation and then act shocked when it arrives

In Little Rock, escalation meant federalization and the deployment of troops.
In Minneapolis, escalation looks like larger federal deployments, aggressive operations, and the kind of flashpoint incident, like the Good shooting, that ignites protest and hardens positions.
Resistance politics is a firework: it is exciting right up until someone loses a hand.

Now, the differences that matter, so we do not do lazy history

1) The moral stakes are not interchangeable

Faubus was defending racial segregation against a Supreme Court-backed constitutional right. That is a black mark, full stop.
Minneapolis’ dispute is over immigration enforcement and the extent to which local government should cooperate. You can think Minneapolis is wrong without pretending it is the same moral universe.

2) Faubus engaged in direct obstruction; Minneapolis primarily uses an anti-commandeering style of resistance

A crucial legal distinction: cities and states generally cannot stop federal agents from enforcing federal law, but they often try to avoid being used as manpower for federal enforcement. Minneapolis’ own guidance stresses that MPD does not cooperate and also “cannot interfere” with ICE operations.
That is not a semantic quibble; it is the difference between standing in the doorway and refusing to hold the door open.

3) Walz is not Faubus with a newer haircut

Here is the part you do not want to get wrong in print: Faubus used the National Guard as the blockade.
In the Minneapolis situation, the documented story is that Walz put resources, including Guard readiness, in place to address public safety amid protests and tensions after the shooting. There is no solid evidence in mainstream reporting that he deployed the Guard to physically prevent ICE from operating.
If you claim “Walz used the Guard to resist ICE,” you are not doing analysis. You are donating your credibility to your opponents.

The principle Granite Staters should care about

Here is the uncomfortable through-line: many Americans do not actually believe in federalism, supremacy, or local control as principles. They believe in them as weapons.

Faubus treated federal authority as illegitimate when it threatened his coalition. Minneapolis treats federal authority as illegitimate when it threatens theirs. The labels change, the selective constitutionalism does not.

If you want a republic that lasts longer than a mayfly, you do not get to cheer defiance only when your side is doing it. Otherwise, you are not defending constitutional order. You are auditioning for the next cycle of national nullification theater, where everyone claims to be the victim, and nobody admits they lit the fuse.