Trump adopts Biden’s legal playbook to challenge sanctuary cities

Next week, the Trump administration filed a complaint against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County, challenging regional regulations that limit participation with federal immigration government. The administration contends that these sanctuary policies obstruct national police efforts and avoid organizations like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out their responsibilities efficiently.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told the&nbsp, Washington Examiner&nbsp, that shelter areas are at a major drawback in this constitutional challenge. According to Rahmani,” Sanctuary places have an upward legal challenge stopping Trump or even slowing him down.” &nbsp,” Some issues like immigration are primarily controlled by the federal government, so there is much that state can do to slow down ( or speed up ) immigration enforcement. The Biden presidency received numerous victories on this front thanks to the traditional Supreme Court.

Rahmani pointed to the Constitution’s power section, which establishes that national laws overrides conflicting state or local laws. &nbsp,” To the degree that state and federal laws fight, under the Constitution’s power section, federal law controls” ,&nbsp, he explained. &nbsp,” The blue cities ‘ best chance of challenging Trump is to argue that a federal law or executive order violates the Constitution, such as birthright citizenship or impoundment” .&nbsp,

Perhaps if cities succeed in judge, Rahmani added, Trump still holds important liquidity. The issue with any legal problem is that Trump and the Republicans in Congress may withhold federal funding to make California bend to their will, according to &nbsp. The sanctuary cities have much leverage and are in a terrible position.

The Trump Justice Department cited a landmark Supreme Court decision in its issue that established the federal government’s supremacy over states in terms of emigration.

The Justice Department cited the 2012 Supreme Court&nbsp, Arizona v. United States as evidence in its issue, citing its outlined democratic and sovereign power to manage and execute relations with foreign nations.

More than a decade ago, the Arizona case demonstrated that immigration protection is a solely federal responsibility, preventing states from passing laws that directly conflict with national priorities. While the selection gave Biden a legitimate application to challenge state-led border enforcement initiatives, pro-enforcement advocates struggled to do so during his presidency when states like Texas argued they should have more expert when the federal government declines to work.

John Yoo, a laws professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told the&nbsp, Washington Examiner&nbsp, that Biden’s legal successes reinforced the idea that immigration is only a federal matter. &nbsp,” In both cases ( Biden v. Texas 2022 and United States v. Texas 2023 ), the courts are policing the line of federal power versus states ‘ rights in immigration” ,&nbsp, Yoo said. &nbsp,

” The question is never the assessment, but the material of the law. The Supreme Court in Arizona stated that not only is immigration a national problem, but that it is so entirely provincial that says have no authority to enforce it as well,” Yoo continued.

Then, Trump is testing how much he can force the judges in the other path, flipping the reasoning of&nbsp, Arizona&nbsp, against sanctuary jurisdictions. &nbsp,” Biden and Obama used that concept to harm anyone states did, like Texas, to enforce immigration regulation or authorities the frontier. Trump may attempt to expand the law to demand state to assist the federal government when it is in need, Yoo said.

Biden’s DOJ frequently leaned on&nbsp, the Arizona&nbsp, law to store state-led immigration enforcement work. In&nbsp, Biden v. Texas &nbsp, ( 2022 ), the Supreme Court ruled that Biden’s administration had the authority to terminate the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the” Remain in Mexico” policy, reinforcing the executive branch’s power to set immigration policy.

A year later, the high court ruled in&nbsp, United States v. Texas &nbsp, ( 2023 ) that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing to challenge Biden’s immigration enforcement priorities, allowing his administration to continue its approach to exercising discretion in executing deportations. The decision emphasized the senior firm’s control over immigration decisions, stating: &nbsp,” In line with those principles, this Court has declared that the Executive Branch even retains discretion over whether to replace a noncitizen from the United States” ,&nbsp, once citing&nbsp, Arizona.

If Trump persuades the Supreme Court to revisit&nbsp, Arizona, he could fundamentally reshape the balance of power over immigration enforcement. &nbsp,” I think his chances are quite high that he will win, none of the Justices in that majority are still on the Court”, Yoo noted, “while Republican-appointed members like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts were in the dissent”.

John Malcolm, vice president for the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government, told the&nbsp, Washington Examiner&nbsp, that Trump faces different legal obstacles than Biden. &nbsp,

According to Malcolm Malcolm,” One advantage Biden had is the Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Arizona,” in which the Court held that state officials cannot pass laws that conflict with federal immigration priorities and enforcement efforts. In that situation, the state was making proactive efforts to more strictly abide by immigration laws that the federal government opposed.

However, Trump’s attempt to force sanctuary cities into compliance faces hurdles. Hashim G. Jeelani, principal attorney at Jeelani Law Firm, PLC, told the&nbsp, Washington Examiner&nbsp, that the 10th Amendment protects states from being compelled to enforce federal laws, citing&nbsp, Murphy v. NCAA&nbsp, ( 2018 ). &nbsp,

Jeelani argued that the federal government cannot simply compel states to enforce federal immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities are already using that legal defense in their protests. San Francisco has filed its own lawsuit against the Trump administration, citing&nbsp, Printz v. United States&nbsp, ( 1997 ), which held that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local authorities to carry out federal directives. In City of Chicago v. Sessions ( 2018 ), the Supreme Court affirmed this rule by upholding the Trump administration’s right to refuse to grant sanctuary jurisdictions any grants.

Trump’s lawsuit against Illinois signals that this fight is just beginning. Attorney General Pam Bondi has emphasized that more legal challenges are afoot regarding sanctuary jurisdictions that shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

And sanctuary cities are likewise preparing to push back, with legal experts such as Jeelani arguing that&nbsp, Printz&nbsp, and&nbsp, Murphy v. NCAA place limits on what the federal government can demand.

But with a conservative-leaning Supreme Court that has already overturned several long-standing precedents, Trump may see an opportunity to reshape immigration law in his favor.