Sanctuary cities have been at the center of heated debates about immigration policy, public safety, and federal authority. Some people see these cities as a necessary protection for undocumented immigrants, while others argue that they undermine federal law. But the big legal question remains: Do sanctuary cities violate federal law?
Sanctuary cities are places where local governments limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These cities do not stop ICE from enforcing federal immigration laws, but they choose not to assist in certain ways. For example, many sanctuary cities have policies that limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE (such as refusing to hold undocumented immigrants beyond their release date for ICE pickup), prohibit city officials from asking about immigration status during routine interactions, and deny the use of local funds or resources for federal immigration enforcement efforts.
These policies exist because local governments argue that strict cooperation with federal immigration authorities damages trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. They believe that if undocumented immigrants fear deportation, they might avoid reporting crimes, working with the police, or seeking medical care.
The Federal Government’s Argument Against Sanctuary Cities
The federal government, particularly under administrations that support stricter immigration enforcement, has argued that sanctuary cities obstruct federal law and violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” meaning states and cities cannot create laws that directly contradict it.
Federal officials claim that sanctuary policies interfere with immigration enforcement in ways that:
- Allow criminals to remain in the U.S. by refusing to hand over undocumented individuals arrested for other crimes.
- Make federal enforcement harder by preventing local police from sharing immigration status information.
- Violate federal laws like 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which says that state and local governments cannot restrict their employees from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities.
The Legal Defense of Sanctuary Cities
Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that these policies do not violate federal law because they do not prevent federal agents from doing their jobs. Instead, they focus on what local governments choose to do with their own resources.
Here are some key legal defenses:
- The Tenth Amendment and State Rights
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that any power not explicitly given to the federal government belongs to the states. Sanctuary cities argue that the federal government cannot force local police to assist with immigration enforcement. This principle is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine and has been upheld in past Supreme Court cases.
For example, in Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot force state officials to enforce federal laws. Sanctuary cities use this ruling to argue that local law enforcement is not required to help ICE.
- Local Law Enforcement Priorities
Supporters also argue that cities should have the right to set their own law enforcement priorities. Many sanctuary cities believe that enforcing immigration laws should not be their responsibility, especially when they have other issues like violent crime, drug enforcement, and homelessness to handle.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373 Does Not Require Cooperation
The federal government often points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which says that state and local officials cannot stop employees from sharing immigration information with ICE. However, courts have ruled that this law does not force local governments to actively participate in immigration enforcement—it just prevents them from banning employees from communicating with ICE.
Court Battles Over Sanctuary Cities
Because of this ongoing debate, multiple lawsuits have challenged the legality of sanctuary policies. Some of the most important cases include:
- City of Chicago v. Sessions (2018)
The Trump administration tried to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with ICE. Chicago sued, arguing that this was unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of the city, stating that the federal government cannot withhold funding from local governments as a punishment for their policies unless Congress specifically allows it.
- United States v. California (2020)
The federal government sued California over its sanctuary state laws, which limited cooperation between local police and ICE. A court ruled that California’s laws were constitutional because they simply directed how state and local resources were used—they did not block federal enforcement.
- New York v. Department of Justice (2019)
New York and other states challenged the federal government’s attempt to force them to comply with immigration enforcement in exchange for law enforcement grants. The courts ruled that the federal government cannot force states to change their policies by threatening to withhold money.
These cases show that courts have generally ruled in favor of sanctuary cities, reinforcing the idea that local governments have the right to control their own law enforcement policies.
The Impact of Sanctuary Policies
Sanctuary city policies have real-world effects, both positive and negative, depending on your viewpoint.
Arguments in Favor of Sanctuary Cities:
- Stronger community trust: Immigrants are more likely to report crimes if they are not afraid of deportation.
- Better use of police resources: Local law enforcement can focus on crime instead of immigration enforcement.
- Economic contributions: Immigrants, including undocumented workers, contribute to local economies through labor and spending.
Arguments Against Sanctuary Cities:
- Potential safety concerns: Critics argue that sanctuary policies allow criminals to stay in the country instead of being deported.
- Legal conflicts with federal law: Some believe that sanctuary cities undermine federal immigration laws.
- Funding battles: The federal government has attempted to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, leading to legal battles and financial uncertainty for local governments.
Do Sanctuary Cities Actually Violate Federal Law?
The legal consensus so far suggests that sanctuary cities do not directly violate federal law. Courts have ruled that local governments cannot be forced to help enforce immigration laws, and cities have the right to decide how they use their resources. However, the debate is far from over, and future legal challenges could change how sanctuary policies are implemented across the country.
The clash between federal authority and local control remains a defining issue in the sanctuary city debate. As long as immigration remains a hot-button topic, the legal and political battles over sanctuary cities will continue.
