The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats and secured one rare victory in recent sanctuary city litigation. Federal district courts in New Jersey and Rochester rejected federal challenges to local policies restricting cooperation with immigration enforcement, citing the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, in Virginia, a federal court ruled that a state law barring Section 287(g) partnerships with ICE violated the Contracts Clause and intergovernmental immunity.
Sanctuary city litigation outcomes
- ▪In *United States v. New Jersey*, a federal district court upheld New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill's Executive Order No. 12, which restricts federal immigration officers from entering nonpublic areas of state property.
- ▪In *United States v. City of Rochester*, a federal district court rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit challenging Rochester's sanctuary city policy that restricts cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- ▪Judge Stephen Payne's ruling in *United States v. Virginia* does not bar Virginia from prohibiting new Section 287(g) agreements, only preventing the immediate termination of existing contracts.
- ▪In *United States v. Virginia*, a federal district court ruled that Virginia's law barring state and local governments from engaging in Section 287(g) partnerships with ICE violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.
Anti-commandeering doctrine application
- ▪In *United States v. New Jersey*, the federal district court ruled that requiring New Jersey to offer its resources to assist federal immigration enforcement would violate the constitutional anti-commandeering doctrine.
- ▪The anti-commandeering doctrine, established by Supreme Court precedents, holds that the federal government may not force state and local governments to help enforce federal law.
- ▪In *United States v. City of Rochester*, Judge Frank Geraci applied standard anti-commandeering reasoning to reject the Trump administration's lawsuit against Rochester's sanctuary city policy.
Intergovernmental immunity claims
- ▪Virginia argued that its law does not violate intergovernmental immunity because the law only restricts the actions of Virginia's own state and local government agencies.
- ▪In *United States v. Virginia*, the federal district court held that Virginia's law restricting Section 287(g) partnerships violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
- ▪In *United States v. New Jersey*, Judge Georgette Castner ruled that a successful intergovernmental immunity claim requires proof that federal officials were treated differently from a state, local, or private comparator.
Federal funding coercion precedents
- ▪In previous sanctuary jurisdiction litigation, courts have ruled that the executive branch cannot impose conditions on federal grants that were not authorized by Congress.
- ▪Prior federal court decisions blocked Trump administration efforts to deny federal disaster relief funds and other federal grants to sanctuary states and cities.
Constitutional federalism context
- ▪Under Section 287(g) partnerships, state and local law enforcement agencies assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in carrying out federal immigration enforcement.
- ▪Sanctuary jurisdictions are state and local governments that restrict their law enforcement agencies and employees from assisting federal immigration enforcement and deportation efforts.
Story comments
Loading comments…