History Isn't on the DOJ's Side in Its Case Against NYC's Sanctuary Policies
The Trump administration's lawsuit against New York City challenges decades of sanctuary policies and local independence.
The Justice Department (DOJ) sued New York City over its sanctuary policies on Thursday, alleging that they impede federal immigration enforcement and violate the Supremacy Clause.
New York City law prohibits the use of city resources for immigration enforcement and bans city officials from sharing information with federal immigration authorities. Exceptions can only be made to the city's detainer laws if federal authorities have a judicial warrant and the individual has been convicted of a violent or serious crime within the last five years. The lawsuit claims that these policies, which have been in place since 1989 and are codified in city code and detainer laws, have led to "tragic consequences," including a recent shooting of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer.
While the shooting was unfortunate, legal precedent and state laws may weaken the federal government's case that the city's sanctuary laws contravene the Supremacy Clause. The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, established by the 10th Amendment and reinforced in Supreme Court cases such as New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), prevents the federal government from compelling states to enact laws or regulations.
Additionally, in People v. Demarco (2018), the New York Supreme Court ruled that New York law enforcement cannot administer civil immigration laws. This backed up the executive orders issued by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, in 2017 and 2018 that restricted state officials from assisting with immigration enforcement and prohibited such assistance on state property. In response to immigration arrests taking place in courtrooms during the first Trump administration, New York also passed the Protect Our Courts Act in 2019, which is currently being challenged by the Justice Department. The act prevents civil immigration arrests at courthouses unless a judge-issued warrant is present.
The lawsuit lists multiple instances of city officials and agencies declining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests, but complying with these requests is not legally mandated. In Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that ICE detainers are not binding requests, and local authorities are liable for unlawful detention if there's no constitutional basis for the detainer. "Courts have found almost universally that liability falls on the level of government that honors the hold," Laurence Benenson, vice president of policy and advocacy at the National Immigration Forum, tells Reason. This means culpability for unlawful arrests often "falls on local government," he adds.
Shielding local agencies from civil liability is one reason why some cities have adopted sanctuary policies, according to the American Immigration Council. It could also be a guiding force in New York's refusal to comply with federal immigration agencies. In June, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul testified before Congress that New York cooperates with ICE on convicted criminals but does not "enforce civil immigration violations," calling it "the federal government's job."
Based on the past court cases and state laws, it's unclear what new reasoning the administration will use to prove that New York's sanctuary provisions undermine federal immigration enforcement. Some experts believe the federal government has no standing.
"The Justice Department's lawsuit is as meritless as it is dangerous to federalism," David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "If the federal government can force states and localities to help enforce federal law however they want, the states effectively lose any sovereignty to choose their own policies."
"Under the DOJ theory, any time the federal government chooses a more restrictive approach to labor law, criminal law, guns, immigration, or anything else, the states would have no choice but to cooperate in whatever way the feds wish," Bier adds.
The Trump administration's other attempts to force states and municipalities into compliance with its immigration policies, through tactics such as withholding federal funds, have been struck down by the courts. On Friday, a similar Justice Department lawsuit against the city of Chicago was dismissed "in its entirety" by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said it "lacks standing" to invalidate the state, city, and county laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement," per The Washington Post.
It's difficult to see the Trump administration's lawsuit against New York City faring any better.
