SCOTUS opinion with implications for sanctuary cities

[NJlonghorn]

The Supreme Court released its opinion in Murphy v. NCAA today, holding that Congress cannot force states to prohibit sports betting. If Congress wants to make sports betting illegal under Federal law, fine. But Congress does not have authority to commandeer state law for that purpose. Three liberal justices dissented on other issues, but the decision was unanimous on the core anti-commandeering question.

This case has huge implications for whether the Federal government can force states to cooperate in immigration enforcement. I always though SCOTUS would side with the sanctuary cities on that issue, but now I'm thinking it will be unanimous.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are a good idea -- just whether the Federal government can legally stop them.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Given that border protection and security is one of the few areas the Federal Government SHOULD be in charge of, I have to disagree that any sanctuary city argument will be shot down unanimously.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Given that border protection and security is one of the few areas the Federal Government SHOULD be in charge of, I have to disagree that any sanctuary city argument will be shot down unanimously.

But that isn't the issue. Nobody disputes the federal government's power to secure the border and enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is to what extent the federal government can forcibly enlist state and local government into the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

But that isn't the issue. Nobody disputes the federal government's power to secure the border and enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is to what extent the federal government can forcibly enlist state and local government into the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Wouldn't it be up to the federal government to enforce the law? If there is a city deeming itself a sanctuary city then couldn't INS set up shop in that city to identify and deport those in the country illegally? While it wouldn't change the city's stance nor would there be much cooperation it would certainly make it harder for illegal immigrants to find a comfy location to reside.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wouldn't it be up to the federal government to enforce the law? If there is a city deeming itself a sanctuary city then couldn't INS set up shop in that city to identify and deport those in the country illegally? While it wouldn't change the city's stance nor would there be much cooperation it would certainly make it harder for illegal immigrants to find a comfy location to reside.

Absolutely. ICE could open up a massive immigration enforcement complex in the heart of San Francisco if it wanted to.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Absolutely. ICE could open up a massive immigration enforcement complex in the heart of San Francisco if it wanted to.

It would be a very interesting test to do something like that. It gets old hearing the same old arguments over and over. If the US govt wants to enforce the laws then dot it but dont expect a lot of cooperation from some cities.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The issue is to what extent the federal government can forcibly enlist state and local government into the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

To what extent did the federal government forcibly enlist state and local governments to comply with integration laws in the 60s?

 

[Mr. Deez]

To what extent did the federal government forcibly enlist state and local governments to comply with integration laws in the 60s?

The difference is that the big federal integration law is the 14th Amendment, and it applies directly to the states. There's no constitutional mandate that states enforce federal immigration laws.

 

[Clean]

In general, I agree with the ruling. I think that the Federal Government has seized too much power from the states. If the people of a state want legalized gambling for tax purposes, what business is that of the Federal Government?

The Feds having one set of laws and the states a different set seems to be working in states that legalized marijuana. It may be legal to smoke grass in Colorado, but if you do business with the Federal government, better not bust any drug tests.

 

[mb227]

Note that this has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are a good idea -- just whether the Federal government can legally stop them.

Nothing about that decision could be used in a manner that forces the federal government to provide funds to a sanctuary city. It essentially is the same as the drinking age years ago...feds said comply or lose funding. If a city decides that they would rather harbor illegal aliens, then they don't get federal funds to defray the expenses of providing services.

Cut the cities off the federal funding teet and some of them will change their minds in a hurry...probably everywhere that is not in the Republic of Californiastan.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nothing about that decision could be used in a manner that forces the federal government to provide funds to a sanctuary city. It essentially is the same as the drinking age years ago...feds said comply or lose funding. If a city decides that they would rather harbor illegal aliens, then they don't get federal funds to defray the expenses of providing services.

Cut the cities off the federal funding teet and some of them will change their minds in a hurry...probably everywhere that is not in the Republic of Californiastan.

It's not as simple as that, and ironically, I'm going to quote a post in which I got my *** totally kicked because it explains the issue well - better than the case at issue.

The distinction between the drinking age issue and sanctuary cities is that the federal funding put at risk in the drinking age issue was at least arguably connected to the funding that was put at risk. A general ban on federal funding for sanctuary cities is going to be a problem because most of the funding won't be related to illegal immigration. They'll have to find federal funding that is related to illegal immigration to make it work.

It isn't that simple.

It seems reasonably clear that the president can't withhold Federal funds without Congressional authorization. But can Congress do that? That's a more nuanced question.

It is a long-standing rule that Congress can put constraints on funds that it provides to the States under the Spending Clause. For example, Congress can say it will help fund schools, so long as the State runs the schools in ways Congress requires. The Court characterizes this as a permissible "condition" of the Federal funding. But it is equally clear that Congress cannot impose conditions that are not connected to the funding. The Court calls this impermissible "coercion" in contrast to a permissible "condition".

Remember back to the Obamacare provision that penalized states that refused to expanded Medicare by stripping them of all Medicare funding. The issue was whether this was a constitutionally permissible "condition" or constitutionally forbidden "coercion". Congress/Obama argued that it was a condition because they were withholding Medicare funds based on a State's refusal to expand Medicare. The challengers argued that this was not a close enough nexus. They said that the purpose of the existing Federal funding was to provide coverage for disabled people, single parents, deeply impoverished parents, etc. The ACA tried to expand coverage to all people (parents or not) who earn up to 125% of the poverty levels. The issue boiled down to whether this was enough of a nexus.

In the opinion (link), the Supreme Court interpreted the germaneness requirement very narrowly. The opinion is a jumbled mess of concurrences and dissents, but all of the relevant discussions are clustered under Part IV of each opinion. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court's opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito issued decisions that dissented from the Court's judgment, but concurred in the analysis of this particular issue. All told, that's 4 conservative votes, 1 centrist vote, and 2 liberal votes for the idea that not even Congress can withhold Federal funds for reasons that aren't closely and logically related to what the funds being withheld were granted for in the first place.

So, to enforce a requirement that the State use its own resources to help the Federal government enforce Federal deportation laws, Congress can restrict germane funding. If the Court is intellectually honest, this would not include all funding, or even all funding related to law enforcement. At a minimum, it would have to be funding related to immigration enforcement, and would probably have to be limited more narrowly to funding related to deportation. I don't think there is any such funding, and if there is it isn't much.

Could individual justices abandon principle and flip flop sides to get the result they want, logic be damned? Of course they could. And I would predict that Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg would do just that. Thomas and Alito would basically be saying "Obama can't do it, but Trump can" and Sotomayor and Ginsberg would basically be saying the opposite. Those flip flops would be a wash, with the same 2-2 result in both cases.

It is clear that Breyer and Kagan would vote their conscience, having established their intellectual honesty by voting to strike down the ACA provision. There is zero doubt that they would also strike down any Trump overreach. That's 4 votes.

Thus, the question is what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy would do. I find them both to be intellectually honest, resolving most cases on their merits instead of basing their opinions on political outcomes. Thus, I think it is likely that any overreach by Trump on this issue would be stricken down 6-2.

For what it's worth -- this is an inherently conservative position, with which I very much agree. Enforcement of Federal law is a Federal issue that should be accomplished by Federal agents using Federal funds. The Federal government should not have the authority to coerce States to cooperate. Anyone who thought Obamacare was an overreach but supports Trump on this issue is a hypocrite.

 

[AustinHorn24]

Absolutely. ICE could open up a massive immigration enforcement complex in the heart of San Francisco if it wanted to.

Democrats in Congress and California specifically would block funding for any new ICE infrastructure in California. I suppose they could do it, but they would have to re-route money/resources away from other places to do it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Democrats in Congress and California specifically would block funding for any new ICE infrastructure in California. I suppose they could do it, but they would have to re-route money/resources away from other places to do it.

You're absolutely correct. The last thing Democrats (especially California Democrats) would want to see is stronger enforcement of immigration laws. They've made it clear that their goal is not only weaker enforcement but in the case of California Democrats, active resistance to enforcement. And why not? Sloppy enforcement of immigration laws over the last 30 years helped give them an easy 55 electoral votes, 2 safe Democratic senators, 39 Democratic House members (and maybe 1 or 2 more after the next election), a safe governorship, and super-majorities in both houses of their state legislature. It wasn't the only factor, of course. Having an incompetent and stupid California GOP helped a lot, but it was surely a significant factor.

I was referring to what could constitutionally be done, not necessarily what was possible through the political process.