Abbott is trying to kill or injure illegal immigrants coming to Texas

"You cannot help federal law enforcement enforce federal law" is very much within the power of state and local governments and constitutionally protected. To put it another way, they're saying they don't want state or local resources going to enforcing federal law.

 

"interfere against federal law enforcement" means taking actions to keep federal law enforcement from carrying out their activities. Banning people from cooperating with the feds does nothing to keep federal law enforcement from carrying out their activities.

 

Yes it does. It's stopping something that otherwise would have happened which would have allowed federal law enforcement to carry out its activities by making it illegal.

 

That's a clever lawyerly way of putting it.

But I disagree with your characterization.

 

What was federal law enforcement prevented from doing?

 

That's not the test.

The test is whether a state or local government is interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers.

By blocking state and local officials from cooperating with the feds, they are interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers. They are intentionally and actively inhibiting and preventing ICE from doing their job. As is fitting with the name "sanctuary city" or "sanctuary state."

 

That's completely and utterly wrong. If the Constitution prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to help, how could it be illegal interference for states to tell their officials not to help? A state enacting a policy of non-cooperation is perfectly legal.

 

Again, I disagree.

However, I think if the state just chose to be silent on immigration and happen to have law enforcement policies that happen not to compliment federal immigration policy, that would be perfectly legal, as it would be legal for the state simply to decline working with federal law enforcement. But both are different from banning cooperation with federal law enforcement.

 

The judiciary has rejected the argument you're making.
United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

You are using an odd definition of interfering. No one is interfering with the feds carrying out their responsibilities by refusing to cooperate with them. The feds can do their thing. No one is getting in their way.

Not helping someone isn't the same as interfering with them.

 

I disagree with the 9th Circuit.

However, I appreciate you sharing the 9th Circuit opinion. Thank you.

 

For the millionth time, that's not all they were doing.

 

What do you believe they were doing that interfered with the feds carrying out their responsibilities?

 

Here's an interesting thought experiment. The locals can have agreements to cooperate with the Feds and do joint operations. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Phoenix used to have one with ICE. Could the locals pass a law to force their officers to cooperate every time with the Feds? And if yes, why can't they do the opposite, and force their officers not to cooperate?

 

Banning people from cooperating with them.

 

Affirmation to one of these questions does not imply affirmation to the other, they are two separate questions.

Under the Supremacy Clause, you are allowed to help the Feds and work with the Feds, but you're not allowed to block them or work against them.

 

Agreed. But the locals aren't forced to work with the Feds either. They have that discretion whether or not they wish to help. If local law can dictate cooperation, why can't local law also dictate non-cooperation? Isn't this just the locals executing their Constitutional discretion on whether or not they wish to cooperate with the Feds?

 

Who is being interfered with here? In what ways are they prevented from carrying out their responsibilities?

 

Are states that have decriminalized or legalized marijuana essentially sanctuary states in the context of THC? Is that a decent analogy, and if so, where is the line between failure to cooperate or actively interfering with the Feds? If that's not a good analogy, how about New Hampshire barring enforcement of federal firearms laws? We can obviously come up with examples which would be more palatable to one side or the other for political reasons, but I always recalled the anti-commandeering doctrine to be interpreted as pretty broad.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/br...g-state-enforcement-of-federal-firearms-laws/

 

The party of institutions and law and order strikes again.