I have one notable disagreement w/ @steve_vladeck's take on legal issues raised by the feds in Portland: He suggests feds are bound by state law, & may have violated it. But I don't think the feds can be bound by state law under the Supremacy Clause. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforcement-officers-doing-portland

Granted, the fact that a fed is a fed doesn't mean the states can play no role at all. If a fed commits a state crime in the course of fed duties, the Q is whether the fed acted in "objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their [federal] duties." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3612968527251140457&q=iDAHO+v.+HORIUCHI&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

But the states can't regulate federal agents in the course of enforcing federal law. State law may say that feds have to state the reason for arresting someone, for example, but it can't bind federal agents enforcing federal law.

This is a common dynamic when states and feds have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes (which happens often). State statutory and constitutional law can impose all sorts of rules that fed law doesn't, but generally it only binds state officers and not federal officers.

Finally, there's the separate question of state law limits on the power of federal agents to enforce *state* law. FWIW, I don't think that is happening here, and I don't think the feds have claimed that is what they are doing. But...

... it raises some super interesting 4th Amendment questions about whether state or federal law controls (or both, or neither). Courts are deeply divided on this, as it turns out. Here's my recent article on the problem for those interested. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/471-535_Online.pdf /end