Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Democrats claim racial crossover voting “is the norm” in Illinois
Next Post: Senate committee tries to get to the bottom of Tollway power grab
Posted in:
* Tribune…
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by McHenry and Kankakee county officials, clearing the way to end detention of federal immigration detainees at their county jails.
McHenry County officials said they would appeal the ruling and continue in their efforts to overturn the Illinois Way Forward Act, which prohibits county jails from being used to detain those accused of being in the country illegally.
On average, about 180 federal detainees had been held at the McHenry jail in Woodstock this year. In the past, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid the county about $8 million a year to imprison the detainees while they waited for court hearings on their immigration cases.
Likewise, Kankakee made about $4 million a year from jailing about 120 immigrants.
“States are sovereigns. Counties are not,” Reinhard wrote in his decision granting the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. “The State of Illinois, by legislative act, has decided that its political subdivisions may not enter or remain in such agreements.”
McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally said in a statement Tuesday that the counties intend to appeal Reinhard’s ruling to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Illinois Way Forward Act is another example of how the current legislative assembly is likely one of the most partisan and dogmatically rigid in Illinois history,” said Kenneally, a Republican who was first elected in 2016. “As such and when legally tenable, we at the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office will continue to push back against the obscurity and futility that the Chicago bulwark in Springfield wishes to consign us to.” […]
“This ruling is a victory for the state of Illinois and for immigrant communities and anyone else across the country who cares about fairness and dignity for immigrants,” said Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
* The decision is here…
“[B]oth the Federal Government and the States wield sovereign powers, and that is why our system of government is said to be one of ‘dual sovereignty’”. In contrast, “[p]olitical subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities. They are instead subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions.” States are sovereigns. Counties are not.
As plaintiffs concede, generally the “Illinois legislature is vested with the power to make laws prohibiting intergovernmental cooperation by units of local government,”
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 9:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Democrats claim racial crossover voting “is the norm” in Illinois
Next Post: Senate committee tries to get to the bottom of Tollway power grab
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There’s a certain irony in a states attorney not grasping the concept of sovereignty.
If I recall correctly, there was a third party joined with these other two from Kane and Kankakee. It seems a few months ago that one wised up and figured out staying attached to this and moving forward was a bad idea.
Perhaps someone could just tell Patrick Kenneally the law is about masks, so that he stops wanting to enforce it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 9:54 am
===obscurity and futility that the Chicago bulwark in Springfield wishes to consign us to.===
But, I thought McHenry County is part of Chicago? /S
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 9:59 am
This ruling is a loss for Illinois residents concerned with the disastrous effects of releasing undocumented immigrants being held for violent crimes and other serious offenses back into their communities
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:00 am
Okay. Now, per Judge Reinhard, I guess the states get to apply that to a host of current and future federal orders?
1. Abortion funding
2. Gun control
3. Vaccine Mandates
4. OSHA rulings
5. Health Care requirements
to name but a few.
This could be fun.
Comment by Downstate Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:06 am
@Downstate: I think you missed the point of the ruling. The point is states can control what their subordinate entities (towns/counties) can do. This case is not about the relationship between states and feds.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:08 am
And Sheriffs saying they are sovereign which of course they are not. We really need to enter the 20th century and dissolve counties/townships and come up with a better second level govenment.
Comment by Publius Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:13 am
The idea that a state doesn’t have supremacy over a county is fascinating. What if the ruling had gone the other way?
The state could just eliminate the county in question through legislation.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:14 am
States do not have sovereign powers. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says all powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Federal law does not preempt this act by the State of Illinois. Thus, it is a reserved power. We had a whole war though that decided that states do not have sovereign powers.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:21 am
== the current legislative assembly is likely one of the most partisan and dogmatically rigid in Illinois history ==
That’s a political argument, counselor, not a legal one. Can’t imagine why you lost.
Comment by Roman Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:21 am
End intergovernmental cooperation
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:31 am
@Lucy Pierre
I’m pretty sure those arrested for a violent crime can still be kept in jail and go through the ordinary criminal justice process.
@Three Dimensional Checkers
“The STATES or the people.” Also that war was about the relationship between the feds and the states, not a state and a county. Unless I’m forgetting an Illinois specific civil war.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:42 am
Really well written opinion. Kudos to Judge Reinhard.
“While it is true that only
the federal government is responsible for immigration detention, the federal government can only house
those detainees in the facilities of a state or a state’s political subdivision via a cooperative agreement
[] and the State has the authority to determine whether it or any
of its political subdivisions may enter or remain in such agreements.[] The State of Illinois, by legislative
act, has decided that its political subdivisions may not enter or remain in such agreements.
The State, via the Act, has decided its political subdivisions, including plaintiffs, can no longer
enter Section 1103(a)(11)(B) agreements and must terminate any existing such agreements. This a valid
exercise of the State’s sovereign authority and, therefore, plaintiffs cannot state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.”
Comment by Scott Cross for President Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:43 am
“States are sovereigns. Counties are not. [p]olitical subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities. They are instead subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State…”
Bad news for advocates of local control, as well as for those local officials who say they won’t enforce state law.
Comment by anon2 Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 10:54 am
I get tired of people assuming I am ignorant as a Republican and then I read a blog with the Republican statesman saying inane things like this:
being held for violent crimes and other serious offenses back into their communities
Does anyone else besides me remember a guy named Reagan who was correctly pro-immigration?
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 11:11 am
JB is proud to have signed this law that makes it illegal for local authorities to cooperate with the Biden administration’s ICE.
https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.23653.html
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 11:24 am
LP
8mmigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. This law doesn’t prevent the feds from doing their job.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 11:40 am
Border detentions are way up this year over last of anybody actually cares about the statistics instead of the mindless rhetoric
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 11:45 am
@LP
Furthermore there’s nothing preventing local law enforcement from arresting someone for a crime regardless of their immigration status. So long as that crime isn’t their immigration status I suppose. I’m just not sure what you’re getting at or its connection to reality.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 11:59 am
==== We had a whole war though that decided that states do not have sovereign powers.
This is not correct and the Supreme Court has repeatedly respected states’ sovereignty. States and the national government are both sovereign with some areas only the national government can make policy, some they share authority, and in some areas only states have sovereignty. The Civil War involved a fight over states nullifying laws that were in the correct authority of the federal government. The Supremacy Clause does give ultimate authority to the federal government where the federal government has authority only.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 12:35 pm
===JB is proud to have signed this law that makes it illegal for local authorities to cooperate with the Biden administration’s ICE.
LP, do you read what you link to:
“• Prohibits state or local governments from signing contracts with the federal government to unjustly detain immigrants.
• Places limitations on local enforcement of discriminatory practices by prohibiting officials from inquiring about the citizenship or immigration status of an individual in custody unless they’re presented with a federal criminal warrant, or otherwise required by federal law.”
The above, that you linked to, is explicitly counter to your claims.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 12:38 pm
===The Civil War involved a fight over states nullifying laws that were in the correct authority of the federal government.===
Yeah, and the Little Rock Nine was about civil order. Arkansas was real sovereign there.
States have sovereign like powers under the 10th Amendment and our system of federalism. States are not actual sovereigns though.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 1:42 pm
The ability to ignore ICE comhttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1295&context=facpubses from cases like Printz vs. US
“The Supreme Court has”reserv[ing] to them a substantial portion of the Nation’s primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status.”16 The idea of “dual sovereignty”17-that whatever they may have ceded, the states retain “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty”-has provided the basis for recent Court rulings that “laws conscripting state officers violate state sovereignty.”
Printz was the Brady Bill case that found the national government may not require actions by state officers due to state sovereignty. So if you think it doesn’t exist, you just argued that the federal government could require ICE cooperation on immigration.
===Yeah, and the Little Rock Nine was about civil order. Arkansas was real sovereign there.
No, you are missing the point and the history. The South claimed the ability to nullify laws, the nullification crisis under Jackson and it was never fully resolved, and so when Lincoln was elected making it clear that he didn’t think nullification was legal, the South seceded based on the assumption Lincoln would push for laws limiting slavery. When I’m saying nullification in this context, I’m talking about nullifying laws about slavery. No one would confuse me for a Confederate traitor.
The US was a unique experiment in creating the federal system with dual sovereignty.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 2:49 pm
===Bad news for advocates of local control===
I have never heard an advocate of local control suggest that state laws should be completely ignored in favor of the county government doing whatever they want. Since most local control advocates are arguing for local control of things like hog confinements, et al, they’re usually on board with things like state and federal regulations for water quality.
The idea that this ruling would be a blow to local control advocates is silly.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Dec 8, 21 @ 3:46 pm