Illinois has now joined California and Connecticut in banning federal immigration agents from making “civil arrests” of illegal aliens in or around state courts. The sanctuary law seems largely performative, as it also appears unconstitutional. It is difficult to see how a state can prohibit the exercise of federal jurisdiction, at least after the Civil War.
Gov. JB Pritzker has been ramping up the rhetoric against ICE and the Trump administration for months, including analogies to the Nazis and claims that democracy is dying. However, the new law crosses the constitutional Rubicon by not only restricting the operation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but also establishing a 1,000-foot “buffer zone” outside buildings.
The law equates courthouses to churches, where suspects can claim sanctuary not only if they cross the threshold, but also within 1,000 feet, unless of course ICE ignores the law.
Recently, the chief judge in Cook County issued an order with the same ban. A few other judges in other states have issued similar orders.
ILLINOIS lawmakers pass bill banning ice immigration arrests near courthouses
The authority for the orders is highly questionable.
The federal government may cite laws mandating the arrest of certain individuals for immigration violations, including the mandatory detention of certain aliens who are removable due to criminal convictions or terrorist activities, and the detention and removal of aliens subject to a final order of removal.
President Donald Trump and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker exchanged sharp words as Trump floated deploying National Guard troops to Chicago and Pritzker vowed to challenge the move in court. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)
The most immediate problem for Illinois is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof[] . . . will be the supreme law of the land[] . . . regardless of anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary.”
BLUE CITY JUDGE CALLS ‘FEAR OR OBSTRUCTION’ IN BLOCKING ICE COURT ARRESTS DURING COURT PROCEEDINGS
The second problem is the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly rejected such state authority to dictate federal enforcement or policy. In the 1952 case Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has “exclusive” control over “all policies regarding aliens.”
Ironically, as I noted earlier, these blue states will have to deal with an unusual authority cited against them: Barack Obama. It was President Obama who went to the Supreme Court to strike down state laws that interfered with federal immigration enforcement (even by supporting that enforcement). In the 2012 case Arizona v. United States, Obama largely prevailed, as the Supreme Court affirmed that ”
