Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Federal Efforts to Punish Sanctuary Cities Are Unconstitutional
While states and cities can choose to help enforce federal law, the 10th Amendment means that the U.S. government can’t force them to do so.
Link to tweet
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/federal-efforts-punish-sanctuary-cities-are-unconstitutional
The Department of Justice sued Los Angeles last week over the city’s so-called sanctuary laws, rules that preserve its right not to participate in the sweeping federal campaign to ramp up immigration enforcement.
Only weeks after federal immigration raids set off chaos in a small area of downtown LA, the federal government claims that the city’s policies, which prohibit police officers from affirmatively assisting in immigration enforcement, amount to active obstruction of federal law.
Last Monday’s challenge follows at least six other federal lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary practices. Additional lawsuits seem likely, as the Department of Homeland Security has not let up on its rhetoric about local opposition to its policies and published a list of some 400 supposed sanctuaries that appears designed to guide federal efforts to browbeat cities into submission. Some local governments dispute their designations as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” DHS withdrew the list following local police agency opposition.
These lawsuits and other actions — such as threats to freeze federal funding from sanctuary cities or to prosecute their officials — clearly violate the 10th Amendment, which provides that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states as independent sovereigns in our system of federalism. While states may choose to help enforce federal law, the U.S. government cannot “commandeer” their resources by demanding participation or by threatening to prosecute or withhold funds from states that opt out. The same goes for cities, which are legally considered subordinate parts of their states.
The lawsuits are an attempt to punish existing sanctuary jurisdictions and dissuade others from joining them. Sanctuary laws vary across cities and states, but they typically involve the jurisdiction withholding active assistance from federal immigration enforcement. These laws may prohibit the initial collection of immigration status information, limit the sharing of identity information with federal agencies, or direct jail personnel to decline requests to detain immigrants simply so immigration agents may pick them up.
No sanctuary laws authorize city or state officers to actively obstruct federal enforcement, and many have exceptions that allow sharing of information about certain serious crimes. Moreover, as experts across the ideological spectrum have noted, immigration sanctuary laws can promote safety, enhance community engagement with police, and foster economic development.
Only weeks after federal immigration raids set off chaos in a small area of downtown LA, the federal government claims that the city’s policies, which prohibit police officers from affirmatively assisting in immigration enforcement, amount to active obstruction of federal law.
Last Monday’s challenge follows at least six other federal lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary practices. Additional lawsuits seem likely, as the Department of Homeland Security has not let up on its rhetoric about local opposition to its policies and published a list of some 400 supposed sanctuaries that appears designed to guide federal efforts to browbeat cities into submission. Some local governments dispute their designations as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” DHS withdrew the list following local police agency opposition.
These lawsuits and other actions — such as threats to freeze federal funding from sanctuary cities or to prosecute their officials — clearly violate the 10th Amendment, which provides that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states as independent sovereigns in our system of federalism. While states may choose to help enforce federal law, the U.S. government cannot “commandeer” their resources by demanding participation or by threatening to prosecute or withhold funds from states that opt out. The same goes for cities, which are legally considered subordinate parts of their states.
The lawsuits are an attempt to punish existing sanctuary jurisdictions and dissuade others from joining them. Sanctuary laws vary across cities and states, but they typically involve the jurisdiction withholding active assistance from federal immigration enforcement. These laws may prohibit the initial collection of immigration status information, limit the sharing of identity information with federal agencies, or direct jail personnel to decline requests to detain immigrants simply so immigration agents may pick them up.
No sanctuary laws authorize city or state officers to actively obstruct federal enforcement, and many have exceptions that allow sharing of information about certain serious crimes. Moreover, as experts across the ideological spectrum have noted, immigration sanctuary laws can promote safety, enhance community engagement with police, and foster economic development.