A federal judge dismissed a demand from the Trump administration that sought to block the application of several “sanctuary policies” in Illinois that restricted the capacity of local officials to help federal immigration authorities in detention operations.
In a 64 -page decision, the judge of the District Court Lindsay C. Jenkins, a designated by Biden, granted a motion from the state of Illinois to dismiss the case after determining that the United States lacks position to sue for sanctuary policies.
The judge pointed out in the ruling that Illinois’s decision to promulgate the laws of the sanctuary is protected by the tenth amendment, which declares that any power that is not specifically delivered to the federal government, or refuses to the States, by the Constitution, is held by the Constitution. The states.
“The sanctuary policies reflect the decision of those accused of not participating in the application of the Civil Immigration Law, a decision protected by the tenth amendment and are not preferred by the [Immigration and Nationality Act]”The judge wrote.” Because the tenth amendment protects the sanctuary policies of the defendants, it cannot be found that these policies discriminate or regulate the federal government. “
The federal judge wrote that granting the request of the Administration would create a “end of the tenth amendment.”
“It would allow the Federal Government to eat the states under the appearance of intergovernmental immunity, the exact type of direct regulation of the states prohibited by the tenth amendment.”
The governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, praised the dismissal, who said he will guarantee that the state police “do not carry out the illegal Trump administration policies or worrying tactics.”
“As state law allows it, Illinois will help the federal government when they follow the law and arrest orders present to hold violent criminals. But what Illinois will not do is participate in the violations of the law and the abuses of power of the Trump administration,” said Pritzker in a statement.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comments.
The Trump Department of Justice demanded the State of Illinois and Cook County, the Chicago Home, in February of the policies that argued in the ability of the federal authorities to enforce the immigration laws, the first demand by the administration specifically aimed at the orientation of the jurisdictions of the sanctuary “, a label of the states, the cities, the cities, the cities, the cities, the cities, the cities, or limited from sanctuary officers.
In the demand of 22 pages, presented days after the Senate confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of Justice sought to block the state, city and county ordinances that prohibits the local police from helping the federal government with the application of civil immigration in the absence of a criminal order. Bondi said policies “obstruct” the federal government.
“The contested provisions of Illinois, Chicago and the Cook County Law reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the application of the Federal Government of the Federal Imigration Law and prevent consultation and communication between federal, state and local law officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out the Federal Immigration Law and keep the Americans safely,” says the claim.
The Administration has taken measures similar to the jurisdictions of the objective sanctuary throughout the country, including a demand this week against New York City, which was described by the Department of Justice as “the avant -garde of interfering with the application of the immigration laws of this country” in a complaint filed on Thursday. The Administration filed a separate lawsuit addressed to the state of New York in February on its “green light law”, which allows undocumented immigrants to request non -commercial driving licenses and prohibit state officials from delivering such data to federal immigration authorities.
The Department of Justice in June filed a complaint against Los Angeles for immigration policies that argued to interfere and discriminate against federal immigration agents when treating them differently from other agents of application of the law in the State. The lawsuit occurred when Trump administration officials were getting more and more with the democratic leaders of California after immigration arrest efforts led to clashes between protesters and federal authorities, and resulted in the deployment of thousands of national guard troops.
In January, Trump signed an executive order that directed Bondi and the Secretary of National Security Kristi Noem to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions “do not receive access to federal funds” and consider pursuing criminal or civil sanctions if localities “interfere with the application of the Federal Law.”
A federal judge in April blocked the effort to retain federal funds from the jurisdictions of the sanctuary, discovering that Trump’s order violated the principles of separation of the constitution of the powers. That judge blocked a previous effort from Trump in 2017.
Kelly O’Donnell contributed.
