Trump sues sanctuary state in desperate bid to ramp up deportations
dailykos.com (nprofile…k7aw)
Three weeks into Donald Trump’s turbulent second term as president, deportations remain steady compared to past years. It looks like Trump’s many threats of “mass deportations” have fizzled out so far. And the reason, as I’ve noted before, is that immigration officials are already stretched to capacity. In order to ramp up the pace, Trump either needs more money to staff immigration agencies, or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency needs significant assistance from local and state law enforcement. He’s been promised plenty of help on that front from red states—particularly Florida and Texas, home to millions of undocumented immigrants. But Trump is a petty ass, and he’s not happy to start his mass purges in friendly territory. He wants to punish blue states, so his Justice Department has filed suit against Illinois for being a sanctuary state. “Citing a national emergency regarding illegal immigration that Trump declared on his first day back in office on January 20, the department in the lawsuit sought to block several Illinois and Chicago laws that ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ his immigration policies,” according to a report from Reuters. The lawsuit further claims that Illinois’ TRUST Act, which bars state and local authorities from assisting federal agents in targeting and arresting undocumented immigrants, somehow violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to preempt local laws. Sanctuary cities and states are objectively a net positive because the approach lowers crime, improves the economy, and is morally justified. This lawsuit? Not so much. Illinois isn’t barring federal authorities from operating on its soil, or otherwise impeding their activities on immigration matters. It simply refuses to help the feds and prohibits them from commandeering local resources to do their work. Constitutionally, Illinois is on solid ground. In the 2017 case Printz v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Scalia could not be clearer in spelling out that the federal government cannot compel local law enforcement to do its bidding. That principle was further underscored by archconservative Justice Samuel Alito in the Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ruling. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States,” Alito wrote. “The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” Remember that as Trump demands that states do his bidding. Alito clearly stated that the feds can’t issue direct orders to state governments. Individual sanctuary cities have already been subject to Trump challenges during his first term. In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that California’s sanctuary laws were constitutional, and there’s "no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult [but] California has the right [...] to refrain from assisting with federal efforts." The Supreme Court then let that ruling stand, with only two justices (Clarence Thomas and Alito) interested in hearing the case. Given the Murphy and Printz rulings, it’s easy to see why the majority of the Supreme Court didn’t feel the need to revisit its anticommandeering doctrine. What is curious is why Alito would want to, given he was one of the architects of the doctrine, or why Thomas would, given he voted for it both times. Ironically, if the Supreme Court did Trump’s bidding and allowed federal authorities to commandeer local police resources, that would mean that the next Democratic administration could force local police departments to more aggressively enforce gun laws—the very reason conservatives created the anticommandeering doctrine. This legal challenge won’t go far. The question is whether the Justice Department filed it in hopes of flipping some conservatives on the court or whether it’s just another expression of Trump’s childish rage. Indeed, not much seems to have changed. “Some migrants arrested in Trump's immigration crackdown have been released back into the U.S.,” NBC News reported. “Space constraints and court orders have led ICE to release migrants on monitoring programs after they’re arrested.” It’s literally business as usual. So suing Illinois seems as performative as the faked claims of mass deportations coming from ICE. Campaign Action
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/9/2301950/-Trump-sues-sanctuary-state-in-desperate-bid-to-ramp-up-deportations?pm_campaign=blog&pm_medium=rss&pm_source=main
Three weeks into Donald Trump’s turbulent second term as president, deportations remain steady compared to past years. It looks like Trump’s many threats of “mass deportations” have fizzled out so far. And the reason, as I’ve noted before, is that immigration officials are already stretched to capacity. In order to ramp up the pace, Trump either needs more money to staff immigration agencies, or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency needs significant assistance from local and state law enforcement. He’s been promised plenty of help on that front from red states—particularly Florida and Texas, home to millions of undocumented immigrants. But Trump is a petty ass, and he’s not happy to start his mass purges in friendly territory. He wants to punish blue states, so his Justice Department has filed suit against Illinois for being a sanctuary state. “Citing a national emergency regarding illegal immigration that Trump declared on his first day back in office on January 20, the department in the lawsuit sought to block several Illinois and Chicago laws that ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ his immigration policies,” according to a report from Reuters. The lawsuit further claims that Illinois’ TRUST Act, which bars state and local authorities from assisting federal agents in targeting and arresting undocumented immigrants, somehow violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to preempt local laws. Sanctuary cities and states are objectively a net positive because the approach lowers crime, improves the economy, and is morally justified. This lawsuit? Not so much. Illinois isn’t barring federal authorities from operating on its soil, or otherwise impeding their activities on immigration matters. It simply refuses to help the feds and prohibits them from commandeering local resources to do their work. Constitutionally, Illinois is on solid ground. In the 2017 case Printz v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Scalia could not be clearer in spelling out that the federal government cannot compel local law enforcement to do its bidding. That principle was further underscored by archconservative Justice Samuel Alito in the Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ruling. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States,” Alito wrote. “The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” Remember that as Trump demands that states do his bidding. Alito clearly stated that the feds can’t issue direct orders to state governments. Individual sanctuary cities have already been subject to Trump challenges during his first term. In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that California’s sanctuary laws were constitutional, and there’s "no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult [but] California has the right [...] to refrain from assisting with federal efforts." The Supreme Court then let that ruling stand, with only two justices (Clarence Thomas and Alito) interested in hearing the case. Given the Murphy and Printz rulings, it’s easy to see why the majority of the Supreme Court didn’t feel the need to revisit its anticommandeering doctrine. What is curious is why Alito would want to, given he was one of the architects of the doctrine, or why Thomas would, given he voted for it both times. Ironically, if the Supreme Court did Trump’s bidding and allowed federal authorities to commandeer local police resources, that would mean that the next Democratic administration could force local police departments to more aggressively enforce gun laws—the very reason conservatives created the anticommandeering doctrine. This legal challenge won’t go far. The question is whether the Justice Department filed it in hopes of flipping some conservatives on the court or whether it’s just another expression of Trump’s childish rage. Indeed, not much seems to have changed. “Some migrants arrested in Trump's immigration crackdown have been released back into the U.S.,” NBC News reported. “Space constraints and court orders have led ICE to release migrants on monitoring programs after they’re arrested.” It’s literally business as usual. So suing Illinois seems as performative as the faked claims of mass deportations coming from ICE. Campaign Action
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/9/2301950/-Trump-sues-sanctuary-state-in-desperate-bid-to-ramp-up-deportations?pm_campaign=blog&pm_medium=rss&pm_source=main