Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker on Trump, the budget, the Red Line and CTU
Next Post: ‘Financial shortfall’ causes Planned Parenthood Illinois to close four medication abortion clinics
Posted in:
* I’m seeing a lot of questions about the Illinois TRUST Act and subsequent laws. Some excerpts from the Illinois attorney general’s guidance manual for law enforcement…
No federal law compels law enforcement in Illinois to assist with or participate in any immigration enforcement action. At the state level, Illinois law generally prohibits participation in immigration enforcement by state and local law enforcement. For example, a local law enforcement agency in Illinois cannot: give an immigration agent access to individuals in its custody; detain individuals pursuant to a federal administrative warrant; detain individuals pursuant to an immigration detainer request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); or share information about individuals in its custody with federal immigration authorities. Importantly, local law enforcement officers cannot arrest an individual for violation of a federal law without a warrant unless state law has granted them authority to do so, and Illinois law prohibits local law enforcement from stopping, arresting, searching, or detaining an individual based on his or her citizenship or immigration status. […]
The federal government cannot require local law enforcement to enforce federal law. In fact, any authorization from the federal government for local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law is effective only if it is accompanied by authority under state law. Any requests from federal immigration authorities—such as ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—for assistance from local law enforcement to detain an individual or to provide access to individuals held by local authorities must be viewed as requests, not obligations. State law dictates whether local law enforcement can comply with those requests. […]
Local law enforcement may provide these types of assistance only in two narrow circumstances: when they are presented with a federal criminal warrant; or when they are otherwise required by a specific federal law. […]
Only federal officers have the authority to arrest an individual for a violation of civil immigration law without a criminal warrant.
Go read the rest and bookmark this page.
Police agencies who violate the state law can be sued.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 10:31 am
Previous Post: Pritzker on Trump, the budget, the Red Line and CTU
Next Post: ‘Financial shortfall’ causes Planned Parenthood Illinois to close four medication abortion clinics
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
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:
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 11:07 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.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 11:21 am
Much of Illinois law on this topic was written with an understanding of individuals rights to be left alone and the limits on law enforcement to target people who haven’t been convicted of anything. Law enforcement cannot detain anyone without lawful cause, and the history of government overreach shows the value of policies like those adopted by Illinois and Chicago.
Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:02 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.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:07 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.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:09 pm
=== Kinda looks like a proclamation of war on blue states with sanctuary policies.===
Donald Trump may crown himself king, he may sit upon a golden thrown, he may surround himself with people who kneel before him and lick his fingers but that does not make him king.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Department of Justice will take unconstitutional positions.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:11 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.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:23 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
Comment by fs Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 12:30 pm
Republicans big on 10th amendment. Supreme Court case that said Feds could not make a state make gambling illegal applies here
Today the justices ruled that a federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Their decision not only opens the door for states around the country to allow sports betting, but it also could give significantly more power to states generally, on issues ranging from the decriminalization of marijuana to sanctuary cities.
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 1:01 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” … .
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 1:20 pm
===Click on the AG’s link and you’ll see lots of footnotes of major court cases that back up their contention.===
I appreciate they support their contention with citations, however they will only cite sources that back them and I would do the same. I wonder if this will have to be decided in court someday.
Comment by maybe Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 3:46 pm
I wonder if this will have to be decided in court someday.
Go to bed…..please.
Comment by Nope. Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 3:48 pm
===Go to bed…..please.===
Excellent arguement, please tell me more about your stance on this issue
Comment by maybe Wednesday, Jan 22, 25 @ 4:11 pm