How sanctuary cities can lead resistance to President Trump’s mass deportations

During his first term, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly clashed with Democratic cities and states that adopted policies that gave “sanctuary” to illegal immigrants. Both teams are currently preparing for the second round.

During President Trump’s first term, sanctuary cities refused to allow local law enforcement to share information with federal immigration authorities or turn over detained immigrants. Many are planning to do the same this time around, even if doing so would put them in conflict with the second Trump administration.

President Trump’s so-called border czar, Tom Homan, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and named contributor to the Project 2025 manifesto, says the incoming administration plans to target sanctuary jurisdictions for “mass deportations.” suggested. Homan recently said he hopes local law enforcement will cooperate with requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hand over undocumented immigrants already in custody, especially if they pose a threat to public safety. said.

“What mayor or governor doesn’t want public safety threatened by their community?” he told Center Square. “Their first responsibility is to protect the community, and that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.”

But most Democratic leaders have made clear they do not accept federal overreach on deportations and are preparing to challenge President Trump’s immigration policies in court.

“We don’t want to fight the Trump administration, but when the Trump administration attacks our progress, we will fight back,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Box. “Immigration is a very important part of who we are and who we will become.”

How Trump targeted sanctuary cities in his first term

President Trump’s first term saw two forms of efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions and to challenge the policy in court.

In 2017, the Trump administration tried to block sanctuary cities from receiving federal law enforcement funding. A number of Democratic state attorneys general filed the lawsuit, including representatives from the state and city of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia.

Three appellate courts reached different conclusions on these legal challenges, leading to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. However, after Trump lost that year’s election, the Supreme Court dismissed the case at the request of the Biden administration.

Therefore, the fundamental legal issues in this case remained unresolved. But Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and executive director of New York University School of Law, said the 10th Amendment, which protects states’ rights, is a strong defense for sanctuary cities and states going forward. He said it would be.

“I don’t think we’ve heard the last word from the Supreme Court on this issue yet,” he said. “The 10th Amendment remains the best defense state and local governments have as to why they shouldn’t be penalized for not fully cooperating with the federal government.”

The Trump administration also challenged several California laws in court, arguing that they interfere with the administration’s federal immigration enforcement policies and are unconstitutional.

One of those laws was the California Values ​​Act, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2017. The law prevents state and local police and sheriffs from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in many ways. They cannot ask about individual immigration. Arrest an individual based solely on most immigration violations; Share an individual’s personal information with federal immigration authorities unless it is publicly available; Transfer someone in local police custody to federal immigration authorities; Federal immigration officials (with some exceptions), etc.

Another California law challenged by the Trump administration was the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which prohibits companies from sharing employee records with immigration officials unless there is a court order or subpoena. It also required employers to notify them of future checks on workers’ employment authorization documents, given that illegal immigrants do not have valid documents.

The Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the Values ​​Act, but struck down the portion of the Immigrant Worker Protection Act that prohibited record sharing. The U.S. Supreme Court at the time declined to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of the ruling, meaning the law’s ultimate constitutionality remains undetermined.

This means President Trump could revive and expand the tactics he used last time to target sanctuary cities, but it is unclear whether they will hold up in court and sets the stage for new legal battles in the coming years. will be arranged.

What President Trump can do in his second term

President Trump is once again preparing to punish sanctuary jurisdictions that interfere with his immigration policies. Homan suggested on a recent talk show, “Dr. Phil,” that the next administration would go so far as to prosecute people who try to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

“If you knowingly conceal or hide an illegal alien from a police officer, that’s a felony. Obstructing a federal law enforcement officer is a felony, so don’t cross the line.” “We carry out such prosecutions, so don’t try us!”

Trump’s advisers are also reportedly discussing reviving and expanding his previous efforts to make federal funding to Democratic cities conditional on cooperation with federal immigration authorities. His first administration focused on grants to law enforcement, but others around him want to tackle other funding streams as well. Cities and states receive federal funding for everything from infrastructure to education, so there’s a potentially wide range to consider.

Vivek Ramaswamy, who President Trump named as co-chair of the new Department of Government Efficiency, told ABC last month that “not one penny, not one penny of government spending should go to this subsidy.” . “I oppose sanctuary cities and I oppose federal aid to people who are in this country illegally.”

Trump’s efforts to withhold funding are likely to be limited by a 1974 law that limits the president’s power to unilaterally cancel government spending. But if President Trump can persuade Congress to overturn the law, or if he successfully challenges it in court, he could have even more leeway to limit funding to sanctuary cities without Congressional approval. expensive.

President Trump is also reportedly considering reversing the agency’s policy that prevents ICE from making arrests in sensitive locations such as schools and churches. He could do so unilaterally on his first day in office.

How are sanctuary cities and states responding?

Many mayors and attorneys general in blue states are lining up to support sanctuary policies for President Trump’s second term.

Bonta has already vowed to take the government to court if it tries to withhold funding for the sanctuary again.

“This was an unconstitutional attempt to impose states’ rights on California,” he said. “If they try again, we will take them to court again and argue that our Tenth Amendment rights, states’ rights, prevent them from conditioning our grants.”

Bonta also said that any attempt by President Trump to deport U.S. citizens with their families who are in the country illegally (something the president-elect has raised) is unconstitutional, and that President Trump’s mass deportation plan is a violation of personal due process. He said it would be a violation of his rights.

Most Democratic leaders agree with Bonta’s remarks, but there is one notable exception. New York City Mayor Eric Adams has said he intends to work with the Trump administration on deportation goals.

Adams is reportedly considering working with the Trump administration to target “violent individuals.” Trump insists he won’t do more, but immigrant rights groups say the mayor will put New York City’s 500,000 undocumented immigrants at greater risk of deportation than they did under Trump last time. They are concerned that they will do so anyway. president.

“Mayor Adams has repeatedly demonized illegal immigrants, including by implying that he can strip them of their right to due process and by using him as a scapegoat for mismanagement of the city’s budget,” the group said. Make the Road New York” said in a statement.

Adams told Fox that his legal team will be speaking with the president-elect to consider the possibility of an executive order overriding New York City’s sanctuary law. These laws currently place limits on information sharing with federal immigration authorities, and the city cannot respond to requests from ICE to detain people.

He also said his administration is considering an exception to New York City law that prohibits ICE agents from entering City Hall. That could give ICE access to the city jail on Rikers Island, as Homan requested.

Adams’ stance comes amid a shift in immigration policy within the Democratic Party in recent years as insecurity at the southern border reaches record levels and many blue cities struggle to accommodate migrants arriving by bus from border states. It reflects what you are doing. Under the Biden administration, Democrats embraced a right-wing border security bill that marked a significant shift away from an emphasis on immigrants’ rights and contributions to the nation.

“The last three and a half years of border arrivals have left a long shadow on our nation’s immigration policy and politics in ways that have not been fully appreciated,” Chishti said. “It’s not the center of gravity of the Democratic Party today to say we should welcome all immigrants in our cities.”

Other Democrats have not been as vocal in their support for cooperation with the incoming Trump administration as Adams, but some have not been as vocal in their support for sanctuary policies.

For example, Philadelphia Mayor Sherrell Parker said last month that she doesn’t know what the future holds for the city’s sanctuary policies, but a city spokesperson told Vox that those policies will remain in place for the foreseeable future. This lukewarm effort suggests that the ground may be shifting outside of New York City.