It’s an troubled issue left over from the first Trump presidency. Does the federal government halt federal funding that Congress has authorized and designate for towns who refuse to support immigration enforcement efforts?
Advertisement
The Trump presidency withheld funding for shelter towns from law enforcement in 2017. Lower courts debated the propriety of the matter, and the Supreme Court always received a decision on it.
In 2025, Trump’s Department of Transportation has raised the stakes greatly. In a letter sent earlier this year, Transportation Department Secretary Sean Duffy warned sanctuary places that they could lose billions in DoT funding for projects like roads, bridges, mass transport, and other jobs unless they cooperate with immigration protection efforts.
Some legitimate experts believe that the Supreme Court and the majority of lower courts would reverse their decision because the amount of funding at stake is so much higher than the law enforcement offers that Trump threatened to withdraw during his first word.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that following Congress ‘ instructions when attempting to implement plans that go beyond what the law specifically requires. A 2021 selection curbed the ability of governmental agencies to carry out Duffy’s exacting goals.  ,
Ok, there are strong similarities between the legal precedent in this case. By reserving some highway funding from says with lower time limits, the federal government attempted to encourage states to equally elevate their drinking era to 21 in the 1980s. South Dakota sued. The Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of the federal government in 1987, stating that it could condition grants that were fair and not so big as to effectively compel states to adopt the government’s desired policy. Only 5 % of federal highway funds were withdrawn from the laws at issue, which was passed by Congress and was somewhat different from an agency letter.
” Here, if you don’t engage with ICE in apparently the subjective perspective of the leader, you lose 100 percent, as I read the memo”, said Greg Shill, a law professor at the University of Iowa who studies vehicles. ” That seems much more aggressive than losing 5 percentage”.
Advertisement
Congress might attempt to obstruct shelter places ‘ funding. However, it’s unlikely to be successful to pass a expenses through the Senate. The Democrats does not permit their cities to become so impoverished.  ,
No one can foresee how the Supreme Court may choose a fresh round of questions involving offers that were withheld from sanctuary places. However, Chief Justice John Roberts” said essentially that you didn’t put a gun to the head of the state through national spending,” according to Justin Pidot, a law professor at the University of Arizona and former White House Council on Environmental Quality general counsel in the Biden administration. ” That certainly seems a lot like that. Highway money — it’s a huge amount of cash, it’s really important”.
” It seems like the whole point is to compel the says here,” he said.
The Tenth Amendment gives state specific authority over the state. Although Washington has a comprehensive immigration policy, Supreme Court decisions have made it the sole responsibility of the federal government to enforce those laws. Washington does ask states to collaborate, but never compel it.
You states and local governments impede efforts to enact immigration law, in a broader sense? That’s a very hazy series that Trump did attempt to draw as clearly as possible.
Advertisement
