7 Comments » - Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 11:07 am: I hope the Gov and AG has a copy of the DOJ’s 1/21/25 memo on “Interim Policy Changes Regarding, Sentencing, And Immigration Enforcement” Kinda looks like a proclamation of war on blue states with sanctuary policies. Of note is the following missive: “The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives. Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration related commands and requests pursuant to, for example, the President’s extensive Article II authority with respect to foreign affairs and national security, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Alien Enemies Act. The U.S. Attorney’s Offices and litigating components of the Department of Justice shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution, including for obstructing federal functions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violations of other statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1373. Declination decisions with respect to resistance, obstruction, or other non-compliance with lawful immigration-related commands and requests from federal authorities shall be disclosed as Urgent Reports pursuant to Justice Manual § 1-13.130. Finally, laws and actions that threaten to impede Executive Branch immigration initiatives, including by prohibiting disclosures of information to federal authorities engaged in immigration-enforcement activities, threaten public safety and national security. The Civil Division shall work with the newly established Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group, within the Office of the Associate Attorney General, to identify state and local laws, policies, and activities that are inconsistent with Executive Branch immigration initiatives and, where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.” - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 11:21 am: ===has a copy of=== Click on the AG’s link and you’ll see lots of footnotes of major court cases that back up their contention. - Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:07 pm: Great start for the litigation challenging the new DOJ/Homeland actions. I’m sure CapFax will keep us up on the latest as it happens. - H-W - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:09 pm: === The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives === Seems like only yesterday, Republicans and Libertarians were opposed to Big Brother and Big Government and the Federal Government telling the States what they can and cannot do. My how times have changed. - Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:23 pm: And here I was told the biggest threat to local law enforcement was the Safe T Act. Good luck trying to decipher if you’re setting yourself up for civil litigation simply because your Sheriff worships at the altar of orange jesus. - fs - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:30 pm: Whether the Feds can directly require cooperation is a question that I think the State has a strong argument to push back against. However, law enforcement also relies on a lot of federal money, loves to attach strings to it, and I have a suspicion that they will try to condition some of that money on how much an agency cooperates with them. The strength of a State’s argument against that isn’t quite as strong or clear - Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 1:20 pm: “… detain individuals pursuant to a federal administrative warrant … .” IF the Feds think something is that important, let them get a judicial warrant. History is full of abuses tied to “administrative warrants” … . TrackBack URI Uncivil comments, profanity of any kind, rumors and anonymous commenters will not be tolerated and will likely result in banishment. Name/Nickname - Required E-mail - Not required URL - Not required