In an apparent warning to the dozens of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across America, the Justice Department has ordered federal prosecutors to look into state or local officials they believe are interfering with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, threatening to charge them with crimes.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s memo, which instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to identify state and local laws and policies that could obstruct the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and possibly challenge them in court, represents a dramatic shift in priorities from President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration.
Additionally, it makes it clear to prosecutors that they will be at the forefront of an administration-wide campaign to combat illegal immigration and border crime, and that they are expected to implement the Republican White House’s policy vision for violent crimes, the threat posed by international gangs, and drug trafficking.
According to Bove, who was a member of the legal team that defended Trump against two criminal cases brought by the Justice Department before joining the administration, the Justice Department is in fact responsible for upholding the Constitution and, as a result, for lawfully carrying out the policies that the American people elected President Trump to implement.
Although the phrase “sanctuary” lacks a legal definition, it refers to a variety of protections for immigrants, especially those who are not authorized to be in the country. The rules typically impose legal restrictions on the ways in which law enforcement in such jurisdictions can work with federal immigration authorities.
The majority of sanctuary laws have been upheld by courts on numerous occasions, and legal experts stated that although prosecutions are feasible, they were skeptical that the charges would be successful in court.
What charges would you bring against these individuals? questioned Robert J. McWhirter, a prominent immigration attorney from Arizona and constitutional expert. On any given subject, there is no obligation for local law enforcement to collaborate with federal law enforcement. Not even robbery of a bank.
Chicago officials dismissed reports of possible investigations, despite the city having some of the best sanctuary laws in the country. For many years, the third-largest city in the country has been a sanctuary city, which restricts police and federal immigration officials’ ability to work together.
According to Alderman Andre Vasqez, the chair of the City Council immigration committee appointed by Mayor Brandon Johnson, the federal government has the right to conduct an investigation.
Trump unexpectedly canceled a 2016 campaign rally at the University of Illinois Chicago as hundreds of raucous demonstrators increased, according to Vasquez, the son of two immigrants from Guatemala. For many young activists in the Democratic bastion, the cancellation is nonetheless a mark of pride.
According to Vasquez, the link between Chicago, President Trump, and the Republican Party will never change. I came from an immigrant household and grew up in Chicago. I’ll need more than that to get a bit frightened.
The delicate balance of sanctuary laws, which distinguish between intentionally undermining federal immigration agents and not working with them, especially U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was being reminded by cities and towns around the nation.
For instance, in a memo, the New York Police Department informed staff that they are not allowed to help in any way with civil immigration enforcement, but they also had to refrain from doing anything that would hinder or interfere with federal authorities’ efforts to enforce civil immigration laws.
More than 40,000 migrants have landed in Denver since early 2023, and Mayor Mike Johnston said the city will cooperate with ICE to apprehend violent offenders. However, he warned that if immigration raids targeted schools and other locations, the city might face legal action.
He told The Associated Press, “We will not be intimidated or blackmailed out of our principles.”
Prosecutors are instructed by Bove’s memo to look into possible criminal charges against state and municipal officials who hinder or obstruct federal operations. The report lists a conspiracy offense and a provision that forbids harboring those in the nation illegally as possible prosecution targets.
According to the memo, state and local actors are prohibited by federal law from opposing, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with legitimate immigration-related orders and requests. For possible prosecution, occurrences involving any such misbehavior will be looked into by the Department of Justice’s litigating components and U.S. Attorney’s Offices.
However, the attorney general’s office stated that it was unaware of any state or municipal officials impeding immigration enforcement in Colorado, where state law prohibits local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents in making an arrest without a court order.
According to a statement from Democrat Phil Weiser’s office, the federal government, not local police enforcement, is in charge of upholding federal immigration rules.
In addition to those pertaining to sanctuary jurisdictions, the memo contains a number of other directives. It predicts a surge in immigration cases under the new administration and directs U.S. attorney’s offices nationwide to notify judges of its policy and create procedures for managing the resulting higher number of prosecutions. In order to inform leadership of law enforcement emergencies or important issues of national interest, federal prosecutors are required to submit so-called urgent reports to Justice Department headquarters detailing any decisions they make to drop charges of immigration offenses.
Additionally, according to the memo, the department would resume charging defendants with the most serious felony it can show. This is a standard practice of Republican-led departments that eliminates the prosecutor’s option to charge a less serious criminal. Additionally, it revokes measures put in place by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, including as one intended to eliminate sentencing inequities that have harshened sentences for certain types of cocaine.
According to Bove, the most serious accusations are those that carry the highest obligatory minimum terms and, when appropriate, the death penalty.
Under a new presidential administration, Justice Departments frequently reorient enforcement priorities to align with White House policy goals. The ongoing struggle between the Republican and Democratic administrations over how best to allocate funds to what officials believe to be the most pressing threat at the moment is reflected in the document.
Democratic attorneys general like Eric Holder and Garland have replaced the policy and promoted prosecutorial discretion instead, but the directive to charge the most easily proven offense, for example, is in line with previous Republican attorneys general like John Ashcroft and Jeff Sessions.
