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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Then do not complain if federal law enforcement treats local officials adversarially.
There is also the simple fact that the "sanctuary cities" are ignoring a growing issue in favor of empty sanctimonious virtue signaling, which is what "progressive" politics tends to devolve to these days.
Indeed. I am sick of hearing the bitching about "They keep rounding up 'non-violent' illegals", ignoring that violent ones hang out with non-violent ones and if ICE has to go search for the violent ones, well, non-violent ones will get picked up in the dragnet.
It also completely refuses to engage with the idea that our laws and basic common sense dictate that we need national sovereignty. Those who violate it only deserve to be returned regardless of further criminal.
You nailed it...."empty sanctimonious virtue signaling".
The Protect Our Courts act won't survive federal scrutiny. If Hochul doesn't want state compliance on federal mandates, there's no reason to expect federal compliance outside of court houses. Maybe the feds should send some DEA agents to camp out at New York's dispensaries until an accord is reached. Until Congress changes the laws at the federal level, the people responsible for this mess deserve to have it enforced on them as hard as possible.
A
End all federal money going to the sanctuary cities for all programs.
End all federal money going to all states regardless of their policies.
Then cut my federal taxes to match. My state can tax me for the programs my state considers important enough to find.
90 percent of my income tax goes to the feds, 90 percent of my government services are provided by my state.
I like the cut of your jib. Who polishes your monocle?
Gavin "jazz hands" Newsom isn't going to get the $4billion he so desperately needs to complete his "high speed rail to nowhere". LOL
This is a fair article.
States are not, and should not, be required to assist federal law enforcement. Nor can they interfere except when the feds are breaking the law.
But don't be surprised when the feds start arresting people at dispensaries.
In the cases of immigration, federal law supersedes state law.
Dem. Rep. LaMonica McIver has been charged with assauting two federal ICE agents. LOL!
No one said it didn't.
But the states are still not legally bound to provide assistance to federal law enforcement for anything.
I think that's right. But ICE being forced to track these people down will lead to more "gestapo" raids with unmarked vans. Doesn't enhance public safety and leads to pissed off citizens. Reason, of course, is oblvious to the practical implications.
They don't want the 'non-criminal' ones picked up - so help sort out the criminals before they can fade back in with the rest.
If they were holding and turning those guys over ICE wouldn't feel the need to do so many raids.
Completely unrelated. ICE is doing raids to meet arbitrary deportation goals set by Stephen Miller. It has nothing to do with whether states cooperate or not. The raids would still target blue state cities whether they cooperated or not because Trump and Miller don't like blue state cities and they want propaganda visuals of illegal immigrants being taken down so that anti-immigration supporters can cheer.
Blue cities and states have more illegals. Ergo, ICE is more active in blue cities and states, genius. If this admin wants to rub Dem noses in that reality, all the better.
And don't be surprised when that isn't a winning issue. Trump nearly flipped NY and your idea is to arrest a percentage of those voters, over something unrelated and that they support (restricting immigration)?
Not my fucking idea man. JFC this is like Always Sunny with the gang blaming the lawyer reading the will for this content.
A
Please tell us when NYC became a sovereign nation which can open its borders to whomever.
Or STFU.
Maybe they could scoop up some of the judges, lawyers, and protestors hanging around the court when they swoop in and detain the illegals and sort them out in Alligator Alcatraz.
We've all been witness to how well N.Y. City's sanctuary status has worked out for them. A screaming success. NOT!
Just wait until the communist Mamdin takes office as mayor. No doubt there will be statues of Lenin on every street corner.
By the way, I have no doubt he will get elected. After all the good people of L.A. elected Chairman Fidel Bass for mayor.
LMAO, history most definitely isn't on the side of sanctuary laws created by municipalities.
This shit is always funny to me. Obama sued Arizona to stop Arizona from assisting birder patrol. Yet the argument here is Feds cant even have an order requiring notification of an arrested illegal. Make it make sense.
You can't make this stuff up. The Sanctuary States and Cities will be getting a major wake up call and flooded with Feds who will do their jobs.
The Feds have the upper hand and the authority.
The question regarding NYC is should they elect Mamdani then perhaps the Feds and everyone else should leave them to their own devises and let them collapse. It is a sad thought. But the mass exodus and chaos won't take long for the city to collapse and the clean up will be far worse than fixing the problem now before it escalates.
But people obvious do not listen and have to learn from their own actions to realize how absurdly stupid they are.
Or NYC will elect Sliwa and turn the corner now.
The article suggesting the Sanctuary status quo will be difficult to remove is moot since the Feds have the higher authority and are backed by the will of the people.
"...a recent shooting of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer. While the shooting was unfortunate..."
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the Reason stance on illegal immigration.
Illegals being shipped back to where they came from = Tragedy
Illegals killing Border Protection officers = Unfortunate
I say take the DeSantis/Abbott approach and drop every detainee off in a sanctuary city/state right in front of the governor’s mansions, city halls and mayor residences.
I bet they change their tune just like Addams did in NYC.
But they also need to disqualify illegals from the census with criminal penalties for fraud if they still do it.
That will impact Texas and Florida too.
So?
The Constitution grants Congress with the authority to enact immigration laws, not the States. These sanctuary policies directly affect immigration and therefore are unconstitutional.
The Constitution grants Congress with the authority to enact and enforce immigration laws. Maybe ICE could station 'watchers' at various courthouses and tip off the immigration enforcers when there is one to grab.