Must Cities Enforce Federal Laws?

Must Cities Enforce Federal Laws?

Or is that up to the feds?

Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.

The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a “sanctuary city,” and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.

Who is correct?

The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.
Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.

During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.

The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.

Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.

This is legalized bribery of the states.

In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.

Now back to sanctuary cities. When the Obama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers — but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago’s complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.

Thus, federal funds awarded in the Obama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.

Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called “laboratories of democracy.”
Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment — a laboratory of democracy — worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.

Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington — a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.

The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.

 Judge Napolitano.

NOTE FROM JOSEPH F BARBER ,In the United States, people are subject to the powers of several governmental units. Citizens must comply with federal, state and local laws - all at the same time. This lesson explores the definitions and differences between federal, state and local laws.
Federalism
The United States legislative system uses the doctrine of federalism. Federalism means that citizens and visitors are subject to several governmental powers. In the U.S., federal, state and local governments all make laws. Generally speaking, each system of government has different responsibilities, though each system is working at the same time.

Our federal legislature, known as the United States Congress, makes federal laws. The federal laws are uniform in that they apply to all citizens and visitors of the United States, no matter which city or state that person is in. Everyone in the U.S. must follow the federal laws at all times. This works differently than state laws. State governments make laws so that they can manage the citizens and visitors of that particular state. Citizens, residents and visitors must follow these laws. Visitors must follow the laws of a particular state, but only while visiting that state. Local governments, such as counties and cities, also make laws so that they can manage the citizens and visitors of those particular areas. Citizens, residents and visitors must follow these laws. Visitors must follow the laws of a particular city, but only while visiting that city.

For example, the Oklahoma legislature has the power to make laws to govern the citizens and residents of Oklahoma. The laws of Oklahoma also apply to visitors while they are in Oklahoma, but these laws don't apply to citizens and residents of Arkansas if those people are not visiting Oklahoma. Let's say I'm a resident of Tulsa, OK. I'm subject to the laws of Tulsa, of Oklahoma and of the United States - all at the same time. I'm required to pay taxes to all three governments.

Supremacy Clause
Keep in mind that Oklahoma can't enforce laws that conflict with the United States Constitution or any federal laws made in furtherance of the Constitution. The Constitution's supremacy clause tells us that federal laws take priority over state laws as long as the federal laws are made in pursuance of the Constitution. When the two conflict, the federal law will trump the state law. Most state constitutions also include a supremacy clause, so that state laws will take priority over city ordinances. A hierarchy is formed, with federal laws sitting at the top of the hierarchy and local laws sitting at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Federal Laws and Regulations
Federal laws are rules that are passed by the federal government and enforced by the United States governmental agencies. These laws include constitutional issues, federal statutes and federal regulations. Our United States Congress makes and passes federal laws. These federal laws are known as statutes. Statutes are laws that are enacted by a legislative body. Federal laws are somewhat limited, though they may be civil or criminal. The U.S. government can only regulate certain areas, as specified in Article I of the United States Constitution. Other issues are left to state or local regulation.

Federal civil laws regulate national and international issues and issues between the states. These laws govern things like immigration, the armed forces and our federal courts. Federal criminal laws include issues like counterfeiting, bank robbery, tax evasion and trafficking controlled substances across state lines. Federal courts have the exclusive right to manage federal laws. For example, let's say John files for bankruptcy. Even though John is a resident of Kansas, his bankruptcy case will be heard in a federal bankruptcy court because bankruptcy is a federal issue.