Federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2017-2018
Trump Administration (first term)  Vice President Mike Pence Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term |
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity |
| Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration |
- See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
President Donald Trump has stated his opposition to sanctuary jurisdictions—cities, counties, or states that have enacted policies which limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law—and said that he would cancel all federal funding to them. On January 25, 2017, Trump took his first action against sanctuary jurisdictions by signing an executive order that would make them ineligible for federal grants and prioritize the deportation of individuals who pose a threat to public safety. The order was challenged by multiple cities and the state of California.[1][2]
On March 6, 2018, the Trump administration continued its effort to prevent California from enforcing state sanctuary jurisdiction laws by filing a lawsuit against the state for passing three state laws—Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103—that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said prevent officials from enforcing federal immigration law.[3]
This page tracked major events and policy positions of the Trump administration and the 115th United States Congress on sanctuary jurisdictions from 2017 and 2018. This page was updated through 2018. Think something is missing? Please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
What are sanctuary jurisdictions?
Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, or states that have enacted policies which limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law. While jurisdictions may self-identify or be described by others as a sanctuary jurisdiction, the specific policies that prompt the designation are disputed. Examples of sanctuary policies include restricting local law enforcement from arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law and prohibiting law enforcement inquiries into a person's immigration status.
A June 2017 study by Ballotpedia found that 32 of the largest 100 cities by population in the United States fit Ballotpedia's definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction. In addition, according to an August 2015 report from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center—an organization that educates immigrants, communities, and attorneys on immigration law—at least four states had also enacted policies that limit local law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement: California, Connecticut, Montana, and Rhode Island.[4]
March 6, 2018: DOJ files lawsuit against California's immigration laws
On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra for passing three state laws—Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103—that the DOJ said prevent officials from enforcing federal immigration law. The DOJ is asking a federal judge to block the implementation of the laws.[3]
According to a DOJ press release, "The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, the Justice Department is seeking to permanently enjoin these state statutes, which are contrary to federal law and interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties."[3]
The lawsuit targets the following California state laws:
- California SB 54: According to the DOJ, the law "restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody. These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law. ... SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement. The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings."
- California AB 450: According to the DOJ, the law "prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations. It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements."
- California AB 103: According to the DOJ, the law "imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution."
Speaking about the lawsuit, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President. California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”[3]
Brown responded to the lawsuit on Twitter, writing, “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”[5]
Becerra also weighed in, saying, “In California, our state laws work in concert with federal law. Our teams work together to go after drug dealers and go after gang violence. What we won’t do is change from being focused on public safety. We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation.”[5]
On March 7, 2018, during a speech at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association, Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed California's immigration laws and the lawsuit filed by the DOJ. He said, "California is using every power it has—and some it doesn’t—to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them. ... We are going to fight these irrational, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers. We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. We are fighting to have a lawful system of immigration that serves Americans. And we intend to win."[6]
July 25, 2017: DOJ announces new requirements to receive Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants
- See also: Sanctuary jurisdictions
On July 25, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that localities receiving Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants from the U.S. Department of Justice would need to meet new conditions to remain eligible for the grants. The grants provide federal funding to states and localities to be used for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes. The DOJ announced that jurisdictions that wanted to receive JAG funds had to honor requests by federal immigration officials to receive 48-hour notice prior to releasing certain detainees and allow federal immigration officials access to local jails and prisons in order to interrogate prisoners. Localities already were required to allow communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers to receive the grants.[7]
"So-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes," Sessions said when detailing the policy. The previous policy, which had been put in place by the Obama Administration in July 2016, required jurisdictions to prove that they were not preventing local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law and gave noncompliant jurisdictions time to adjust their policies.[7]
Lawsuit from Chicago
On August 7, 2017, the City of Chicago filed suit in an effort to prevent implementation of the new criteria. The city contended that the new criteria were unconstitutional. In filing for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the new grant criteria, the city argued that the government could not deny JAG grants to the city as the grants were based on a statutory formula created by Congress. The city also said that both the president and the Justice Department lacked the constitutional authority to alter Congress’ requirements for awarding the grants. Chicago expected to receive $3.2 million in JAG grants in 2017 year to purchase new police vehicles and equipment.[8]
On September 15, 2017, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ordered a preliminary injunction to block the new criteria. In his ruling, Leinenweber said, "The court finds that the city has established that it would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered." The injunction applied nationwide because Leinenweber concluded that the issues presented by Chicago could also apply to other cities.[9][10]
The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit released a ruling upholding the nationwide injunction on April 19, 2018. In the ruling by a three-judge panel, Judge Ilana Rovner wrote, "If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken."[11]
Lawsuits from San Francisco and California
On August 14, 2017, the city of San Francisco and the state of California filed separate but coordinated lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the new grant requirements were detrimental to public safety and violated the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuits challenged the requirements that federal agents be given access to correctional facilities and that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security be given 48 hours' notice before the release of individuals wanted by immigration authorities, arguing that these conditions did not have a basis in federal law. California received $28 million in public safety funds through the program each year and San Francisco received $1.5 million.[12][13][14]
Lawsuit from Philadelphia
On August 30, 2017, the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice challenging the new requirements for the Byrne justice grants. The lawsuit argued that because the grant program was established by Congress, the attorney general did not have the statutory authority to impose the two new conditions upon the program. The city's solicitor general also stated that the immigration-related conditions were irrelevant to grants that funded local criminal justice programs. According to the lawsuit, Philadelphia received $1.6 million in Byrne grants in 2016.[15]
On November 15, 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Justice Department from withholding grant funding from the city. The judge found that Philadelphia was in compliance with the law and that withholding $1.6 million in grant money would cause substantial damage. The judge also ruled that the new immigration-related requirements were unrelated to the grant program.[16]
On June 6, 2018, Baylson ruled that Philadelphia was entitled to receive grant funding and that the Trump administration's attempt to withhold federal funds from the city "violates statutory and constitutional law." Baylson also said that Philadelphia's policies were reasonable and appropriate.[17]
Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley said of the ruling, "Today's opinion from the district court in Philadelphia is a victory for criminal aliens in Philadelphia, who can continue to commit crimes in the City knowing that its leadership will protect them from federal immigration officers whose job it is to hold them accountable and remove them from the country."[17]
After the ruling, Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney (D) said, "It is a ruling that prevents a White House run by a bully from bullying Philadelphia into changing its policies. It is a ruling that should make clear to Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions that federal grant dollars cannot be used for political shakedowns."[17]
January 25, 2017: Trump issues executive order on sanctuary jurisdictions
On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” an executive order that introduced penalties against sanctuary cities. The order made them ineligible for federal grants and prioritized the deportation of individuals who “pose a risk to public safety or national security.” This directive applied to non-citizens found guilty of a criminal offense and those charged with but not convicted of a crime. Secure Communities, a deportation program discontinued under the Obama administration which used local law enforcement arrest data to identify individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission, was also reinstituted as a result of this executive order.[2]
The executive order established the following three practices:[2]
- Made sanctuary cities ineligible for federal funding at the discretion of the attorney general and secretary of homeland security;
- Instructed the secretary of homeland security to use the "Declined Detainer Outcome Report" or a similar report to publish weekly "a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens"; and
- Directed the Office of Management and Budget to collect information on federal grant money received by sanctuary jurisdictions.
Trump administration officials on sanctuary jurisdictions
President Donald Trump
- On February 22, 2018, Trump threatened to remove all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from California for the state's sanctuary jurisdiction status. He said, "The level of, in this country who would ever believe something like this could happen but we're literally getting MS-13 out by the thousands. But they come in. These are smart they're smart. They actually have franchises going to Los Angeles. We're getting no help from the state of California. I mean frankly, if I wanted to pull our people from California you would have a crime nest like you've never seen in California. All I'd have to do is say ICE and Border Patrol, let California alone. You'd be inundated. You would see crime like nobody's ever seen a crime in this country and yet we get no help from the state of California. They are doing a lousy management job. They have the highest taxes in the nation and they don't know what's happening out there. It's a, it's a, frankly, it's a disgrace. The sanctuary city situation, the protection of these horrible criminals, you know because you're working on it, and the protection of these horrible criminals in California and other places but in California, that if we ever pulled our ICE out if we ever said, hey let California alone, let them figure it out for themselves, in two months they'd be begging for us to come back. They would be begging. And you know what, I'm thinking about doing it."[18]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
- On March 7, 2018, during a speech at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association, Sessions discussed California's immigration laws and the state's sanctuary jurisdiction status. His comments appear below.[6]
- Sessions on the mayor of Oakland notifying residents that there would be an ICE raid: "The mayor of Oakland has been actively seeking to help illegal aliens avoid apprehension by ICE. Her actions support those who flout our laws and boldly validate the illegality. There’s no other way to interpret her remarks. To make matters worse, the elected Lieutenant Governor of this state praised her for doing so. Bragging about and encouraging the obstruction of our law enforcement and the law is an embarrassment to this proud and important state. Tom Homan, Acting Director of ICE has said that 'being a law enforcement officer is already dangerous enough, but to give the criminals a heads up that we're coming in the next 24 hours increases that risk. I watch [the mayor’s] statement when she said her priority is the safety of her community, but what she did has the exact opposite effect.' According to Acting Director Homan, ICE failed to make 800 arrests that they would have made if the mayor had not acted as she did. Those are 800 wanted aliens that are now at large in that community—most are wanted criminals that ICE will now have to pursue with more difficulty in more dangerous situations, all because of one mayor’s irresponsible action. So here’s my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda."
- Sessions on California enacting certain immigration laws: "In recent years, California has enacted a number of laws designed to intentionally obstruct the work of our sworn immigration enforcement officers—to intentionally use every power it has to undermine duly-established immigration law in America. California won’t let employers voluntarily allow ICE agents on their property. And California requires employers to give notice to employees before ICE inspects their workplace. When this law was before the California General Assembly, a Judiciary Committee report explicitly stated that its goal was to frustrate 'an expected increase in federal immigration enforcement actions.' ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law. California cannot forbid them or obstruct them in doing their jobs. ... And just think about the situation it puts California employers in. They want to help law enforcement. They want to do their civic duty. We ought to encourage that. But your state attorney general has repeatedly said his office will prosecute these business owners. Let me quote: 'ignorance of the law is no excuse if you violate it' and 'you are subjecting yourself to up to $10,000 [in fines] for violations.'"
- Sessions on California impeding the work of ICE agents: "California has also claimed the authority to inspect facilities where ICE holds people in custody. Already this year, California has specifically and in a discriminatory manner targeted six facilities and demanded documents and other material from the Department of Homeland Security. California won’t let law enforcement officers like you transfer prisoners into ICE custody or even communicate with ICE that you’re about to release someone they’re looking for. Remember that California found these people dangerous enough to detain them in the first place, but then insists on releasing them back into the community instead of allowing federal officers to remove them. And rather than allow ICE officers to do their jobs at the jailhouse, they force these officers to conduct far more dangerous arrests elsewhere—where violent criminals may reside and where children can be caught in the crossfire. That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s a plain violation of federal statute and common sense. Importantly, these laws are harmful to Californians, and they’re especially harmful to law enforcement. That’s why the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit yesterday against the state of California to invalidate these unjust laws and to immediately freeze their effect. Federal agents must be able to do the job that Congress has directed them to do."
- Sessions on not asking states to enforce federal immigration laws: "Contrary to what you might hear from the lawless open borders radicals, we are not asking California, Oakland, or anyone else to enforce immigration laws. Although we would welcome the positive assistance the majority of jurisdictions in America provide, ICE agents do incredible work every day. They will not be deterred. We are simply asking California and other sanctuary jurisdictions to stop actively obstructing federal law enforcement. Stop treating immigration agents differently from everybody else for the purpose of eviscerating border controls and advancing an open borders philosophy shared by only the most radical extremists. Stop protecting lawbreakers and giving all officers more dangerous work to do so that a few politicians can score political points on the backs of officer safety."
- On March 27, 2017, Sessions said that sanctuary jurisdictions would lose federal funding if they did not comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which governs communications between government agencies and immigration services. He said that any jurisdiction applying for a U.S. Department of Justice grant would have to certify compliance with this law. "The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw-back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates Section 1373," Sessions added.[19]
State and local response to federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions
Within days of Trump's election, more than two dozen mayors across the country—including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D)—pledged to continue their sanctuary city policies, which are policies that in some way limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D) pointed to the circumstances of youths who were residing in the country without legal permission as one reason he would push for Seattle to remain a sanctuary city, saying, "If we were forced to cooperate, those young people who spent their whole lives here would be ripped out of this city and sent to a place they don’t know. And I think that is immoral.”[20] Petitions were also circulated at universities requesting that the institutions declare themselves to be sanctuary campuses and protect students residing in the country without legal permission.[21]
Following Trump's January 25, 2017, executive orders on immigration, several state and local officials indicated they might challenge them in court. For example, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) issued the following statement, in part, “Executive orders do not change existing law. Executive orders cannot contradict existing law. And Executive orders can be challenged for violating constitutional and legal standards in their enforcement. … California is prepared to work with our federal government to enhance the safety and well-being of all our people. We will work with our sister states to achieve mutual goals of respect and cooperation with the federal government. And we will remain ready to advance and defend California's policies wherever and whenever necessary."[22] De Blasio also said Trump’s orders would be "susceptible to legal challenges."[23]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Donald J. Trump for President, "Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter," accessed November 18, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 White House, "Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," January 25, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Justice.gov, "Justice Department Files Preemption Lawsuit Against the State of California to Stop Interference with Federal Immigration Authorities," March 7, 2018
- ↑ Immigrant Legal Resource Center, "Detainer Policies," August 20, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 The New York Times, "Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws," March 6, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Justice.gov, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks at the 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day Hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association," March 7, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Politico, "Justice Department makes new move against sanctuary cities," July 25, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, The City of Chicago v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States - Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, filed August 7, 2017
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Judge Blocks Trump on Threat to Punish Sanctuary Cities," September 15, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Judge rules in city's favor on sanctuary cities, grants nationwide injunction," September 15, 2017
- ↑ CBS Chicago, "Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Blocking Trump Policy Punishing Sanctuary Cities," April 19, 2018
- ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "California and San Francisco suing Trump administration over 'sanctuary cities' funding fight," August 14, 2017
- ↑ SFGate, "State to join SF in suing Trump administration over sanctuary-city threat," August 14, 2017
- ↑ Justia, "State of California, ex rel. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California v. Sessions et al," August 14, 2017
- ↑ Law 360, "Philly Sues AG Over Withholding Funds To Sanctuary Cities," August 30, 2017
- ↑ NBC News, "Philadelphia scores legal victory in sanctuary city funding fight," November 15, 2017
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 NBC News, "Judge rules that Philadelphia, a 'sanctuary city,' is entitled to federal funding," June 7, 2018
- ↑ ABC News 7, "War of words ensues between Trump and CA sanctuary city mayors," February 22, 2018
- ↑ Department of Justice, "Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions," March 27, 2017
- ↑ TIME, "How Mayors Across the U.S. Are Defying Donald Trump on Immigration," November 21, 2016
- ↑ TIME, "Students Demand ‘Sanctuary Campuses’ to Oppose Donald Trump Immigration Policies," November 16, 2016
- ↑ California Department of Justice, "Attorney General Xavier Becerra Issues Statement on President Donald Trump Signing Executive Orders Regarding Immigration," January 25, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "De Blasio, flanked by city officials, threatens suit over Trump's sanctuary cities order," January 25, 2017
| |||||||||||||||||||
