Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

[W.D.Clinger]

Filed today by a US district court in Illinois:

The United States filed suit against Illinois, Cook County, the Cook County
Board of Commissioners, the City of Chicago, and individual officials alleging that
their Sanctuary Policies are preempted by federal law and violate the
intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.....For the reasons
below, the motions are granted.

The ruling is 64 pages long. Here is a short excerpt.

The United States urges an expansive reading of § 1373....

This issue has been treated extensively by other courts. Without exception,
each has rejected the United States’s capacious reading of § 1373.....
That conclusion is amply supported by the text, structure, and
history of § 1373.

From its conclusion:

The United States’s complaint [Dkt. 1] is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. If it
wishes to do so, the United States may amend its complaint....If no
amended pleading is filed by the date the court separately provides, the dismissal
will convert to one with prejudice.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, and what does that mean in plain language?

 

[Thermal]

That sanctuary cities are not illegal under federal law, but the feds can tweak their argument and try again, should they wish.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thanks.

 

[Hercules56]

That sanctuary cities are not illegal under federal law, but the feds can tweak their argument and try again, should they wish.

Some of the actions of some Sanctuary Cities may indeed violate Federal law that is decades old. You should read the lawsuit against NYC.

Now, are they immoral? Thats up to perspective. Are the laws banning these actions unConditional? Possibly.

 

[Thermal]

Some of the actions of some Sanctuary Cities may indeed violate Federal law that is decades old. You should read the lawsuit against NYC.

Now, are they immoral? Thats up to perspective. Are the laws banning these actions unConditional? Possibly.

The suit wasn't about their actions or morality, though. It was about the Feds arguing that there was existing federal.law already making thrm.illegal. the courts said "yeah, no" to this particular argument.

 

[Hercules56]

The suit wasn't about their actions or morality, though. It was about the Feds arguing that there was existing federal.law already making thrm.illegal. the courts said "yeah, no" to this particular argument.

When did the courts say that localities can opt out of cooperating with all federal immigration requests and actions?

 

[Thermal]

When did the courts say that localities can opt out of cooperating with all federal immigration requests and actions?

I don't recall them ever opting in.

Federal law may be at the top of the totem pole, but that don't require the States to be submissive lapdogs.

I mean, did you catch this ruling at all? The courts told the Feds to go scratch. If the States had an obligation to belly up and comply, there would have been no case to try.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The suit wasn't about their actions or morality, though. It was about the Feds arguing that there was existing federal.law already making thrm.illegal. the courts said "yeah, no" to this particular argument.

"Yeah, no" sums it up. The decision ran to 64 pages because most of it was a careful and thorough takedown of the US government's arguments. Here's my own, slightly longer, summation:

No. Just no. The US government can try again, if and when its attorneys can invent arguments consistent with US law and binding precedent.​

​

When did the courts say that localities can opt out of cooperating with all federal immigration requests and actions?

It is clear that @Hercules56 has not read the decision. In particular, @Hercules56 has not read and understood why the US government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 did not hold up in court. The US government's arguments in the NYC case @Hercules56 is now flogging are essentially the same arguments rejected by Judge Jenkins in the Illinois case.

I can understand why @Hercules56 might be intimidated by 64 pages of careful legal argument. MAGA disinformation is pervasive among many of the news sources he cites. One example of that disinformation is his idea that an executive order can repeal or amend laws passed by Congress and signed by a prior president. For example: 8 USC § 1373 became law in 1996, and subsequent years have accumulated a substantial body of case law and binding precedent. I recommend the link in the previous sentence to those who don't want to read the 64-page opinion.

 

[Thermal]

For example: 8 USC § 1373 became law in 1996, and subsequent years have accumulated a substantial body of case law and binding precedent.

That is a tight little summation. The law basically says the state cannot enact laws or policies which limit information to DHS, but importantly (and this was the thrust of the recent court ruling ) the state is required to take no action. which is what sanctuary cities are all about. Direct and to the point.

 

[Hercules56]

I don't recall them ever opting in.

Federal law may be at the top of the totem pole, but that don't require the States to be submissive lapdogs.

I mean, did you catch this ruling at all? The courts told the Feds to go scratch. If the States had an obligation to belly up and comply, there would have been no case to try.

So states are not required to abide by the Federal voting rights act or civil rights act?

 

[Thermal]

So states are not required to abide by the Federal voting rights act or civil rights act?

No. Any other questions or displays of woeful lack of comprehension you'd like to display?

 

[Hercules56]

No. Any other questions or displays of woeful lack of comprehension you'd like to display?

You're wrong.

States are absolutely required to abide by Federal law.

Your States Rights argument is wrong.

Supremacy Clause still rules the day.

 

[Thermal]

You're wrong.

States are absolutely required to abide by Federal law.

Your States Rights argument is wrong.

Supremacy Clause still rules the day.

Correct, as long as the law is valid/enforceable and constitutional and all that. We done here?

 

[Hercules56]

Correct, as long as the law is valid/enforceable and constitutional and all that. We done here?

Unless a Federal law has been stricken by a Federal court and that removal has not been suspended by a higher court pending appeal, the federal law must be abided by.

There are MANY federal immigration laws mandating local and state cooperation that have not been suspended by federal courts, and some Sanctuary entities still refuse to abide by and cooperate with them.

 

[Thermal]

Unless a Federal law has been stricken by a Federal court and that removal has not been suspended by a higher court pending appeal, the federal law must be abided by.

There are MANY federal immigration laws mandating local and state cooperation that have not been suspended by federal courts, and some Sanctuary entities still refuse to abide by and cooperate with them.

We were talking about the recent ruling, where the US Govt lost its case pretty much summarily. To which you disjointedly asked...

So states are not required to abide by the Federal voting rights act or civil rights act?

...which had nothing to do with anything.

Eta: although the majority of what you mention falls under the same reasoning that the Feds lost this case under: the Civil Rights Act of '64 is largely concerned with what can't be done, not with what the state must do, ie you can't discriminate based on sex, race etc

 

[Hercules56]

We were talking about the recent ruling, where the US Govt lost its case pretty much summarily. To which you disjointedly asked...

Cool.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of federal immigration laws that some Sanctuary entities appear to be violating, and these laws have not been suspended by relevant federal courts.

 

[Thermal]

Cool.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of federal immigration laws that some Sanctuary entities appear to be violating, and these laws have not been suspended by relevant federal courts.

Their time will likely come up to be tested as well. The Feds lost this round. They will be likely to lose them all if they can't come up with a convincing argument, which they spectacularly failed to do in this case.

 

[dirtywick]

That sanctuary cities are not illegal under federal law, but the feds can tweak their argument and try again, should they wish.

also if i'm reading that last line correctly it seems if they don't try again and tweak their argument by a certain date, then they can't try again.

 

[Thermal]

also if i'm reading that last line correctly it seems if they don't try again and tweak their argument by a certain date, then they can't try again.

I'm certainly no legal analyst, but I thought it was pretty generous of the court to give the USG the 'without prejudice' second bite at all. It seems the ruling was pretty much 'lol no way bitch', to use the technical terminology.