Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Um, what?
Next Post: That’s really good advice, so why won’t you take it?
Posted in:
* Reuters…
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Illinois and the city of Chicago on Thursday, accusing them of impeding the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies and seeking a court order sweeping aside so-called sanctuary laws.
Citing a national emergency declared by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day, the Department of Justice is seeking to block the enforcement of several state and local laws that “interfere with and discriminate against” the federal government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.
The complaint was filed in Chicago federal court. […]
Newly installed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo on Wednesday that said sanctuary jurisdictions should not receive federal Justice Department grants and the department should take actions against jurisdictions that impede immigration enforcement.
Click here to read Bondi’s memorandum.
* From the complaint…
The United States brings this declaratory and injunctive action to prohibit the State of Illinois and its subdivisions from enforcing several state and local laws—namely, the Way Forward Act, TRUST Act, Welcoming City Act, and Cook County, Ill. Ordinance 11-O- 73—that are designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. […]
Both the Governor of Illinois JB Pritzker and Mayor of Chicago Brandon Johnson, sued here in their official capacities, profess a shared interest with the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws to effectuate the removal of such offenders from the United States. Last week on CNN, Governor Pritzker proclaimed: “Well let me start by being clear that when we’re talking about violent criminals who’ve been convicted and who are undocumented, we don’t want them in our state. We want them out of the country. We hope they do get deported. And if that’s who they’re picking up, we’re all for it.” https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/video/sotu-pritzker-on-planned-chicago-immigration-raids. Illinois laws, however, provide otherwise. […]
The Illinois Way Forward Act and TRUST Act both impede the Federal Government’s ability to regulate immigration and take enforcement actions against illegal aliens by preventing state law enforcement officials from assisting with federal civil immigration enforcement. Under these laws, state officers are explicitly prohibited from complying with immigration detainers or civil immigration warrants; they are also prevented from entering into agreements to detain noncItizens for federal civil immigration violations. […]
By refusing to honor civil detainers and warrants expressly authorized by Congress, Defendants have unlawfully eliminated these means for federal immigrations officials to carry out their statutory functions.
* The DOJ sued Chicago in 2017 over its sanctuary city status. National Immigrant Justice Center…
The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) welcomes today’s federal court ruling that the U.S. Attorney General’s threat to withhold law enforcement funding from sanctuary cities has no basis in law.
The decision from the Northern District Court of Illinois, written by Reagan appointee Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, is another significant federal ruling blocking the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.
The City of Chicago sued the U.S. Department of Justice last month after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funding to cities and states that refuse to honor immigration detainers or have their local police act as immigration agents. The court found these conditions to be unlawful. At issue was Chicago’s 2012 Welcoming City Ordinance, which forbids the city’s police from inquiring about immigration status or detaining individuals for immigration purposes.
“Today’s ruling creates a critical roadblock to the administration’s persistent drive to enlist our local police in federal immigration enforcement,” said NIJC Associate Director of Litigation Mark Fleming. “As the City of Chicago has long recognized, and as our communities and elected officials acknowledged last month as Governor Rauner signed the TRUST Act into law, removing the fear that any interaction with the police could result in deportation is important to public safety and critical in building trust between communities and the police; that is what sanctuary city policies are all about.”
This post will likely be updated.
…Adding… From Gov. Pritzker…
Statement from the Illinois Governor’s Office:
“Unlike Donald Trump, Illinois follows the law. The bipartisan Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law by a Republican governor, has always been compliant with federal law and still is today. Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals. Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump Administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted January 6 violent criminals. We look forward to seeing them in court.”
Noting some recent comments directly from Gov. Pritzker too:
• January 28 Press Conference: “We can make sure that we’re following the law which is what we always do and that the federal government is following the law. That’s most of what we can do. We’ve passed laws in Illinois to protect people and we’ll continue to focus on taking action where they’re most threatened.”
• January 24 Press Conference: “We’re all having discussions across all the agencies of state government to make sure that we’re communicating. It’s Know Your Rights, making sure that people know what they should do if an agent shows up and asks them for proof of citizenship or proof of residency. Everybody is looking to follow the law and make sure that families are safe in the process. The federal government is not communicating with state government or local governments about what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and so we don’t know exactly how to either assist the parents in dealing with it or assist the federal government in the work that they’re doing that is legally constitutional. It’s a challenge. But what we’re communicating with all of our agencies and making sure that, again, know your rights is really what we’re trying to communicate to all the parents and all the organizations across the state.”
…Adding… Sun-Times with more react…
At a Loop news conference, Preckwinkle said “we’ll defend ourselves and hope for success in the court system… We’re gonna fight back. We will pursue every legal opportunity to defend the programs that we believe in and defend our values.”
A spokesperson for the city Law Department said they were reviewing the suit. Johnson has pledged to maintain the city’s sanctuary policies.
The lawsuit also named Chicago Police Supt. Larry Snelling and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart as defendants. CPD officials declined to comment. Dart’s office couldn’t immediately be reached.
…Adding… Leader Curran…
Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran (R-Downers Grove) released the following statement in response to The United States Department of Justice filing suit against the State of Illinois and City of Chicago for impeding federal immigration enforcement:
“By continuing to obstruct federal immigration authorities from apprehending dangerous criminals being harbored in Illinois illegally, Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Johnson are putting both law enforcement and Illinoisans at risk. For years, the Democratic Majority has ignored multiple pieces of legislation brought forth by Illinois Republicans to repeal the Trust Act and allow state and local authorities to communicate with federal immigration enforcement agencies. Their continued refusal to put the safety of Illinois citizens before their own personal political agendas has now forced the federal government to intervene to keep Americans safe. I strongly encourage the Governor, Mayor of Chicago, and Democratic legislative leaders to quit impeding law enforcement’s ability to cooperate and assist federal authorities with removing violent criminals who are here in Illinois illegally, and immediately call our repeal of the Trust Act for a vote.”
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:03 am
Previous Post: Um, what?
Next Post: That’s really good advice, so why won’t you take it?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So interesting to live in times where the roles are reversed. In the 1960s, states and localities in the former Confederacy formed Citizens Councils and other entities to resist AG Bobby Kennedy and the federal authorities because they didn’t want to change, and just kept doing things their way.
I can’t wait to see Brandon Johnson in front of a Congressional committee.
Comment by Payback Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:17 am
I still like how everyone still refers to Rauner as a Republican. He was a RINO who hated CTU.
Comment by Citizen Kane Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:18 am
State and local government are not obligated to enforce federal immigration law: this is federalism 101. What I didn’t realize is the new Laken Riley Act may alter things a bit. This one looks to be going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court over federalism issues. Illinois will have a legal bill over this one.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:23 am
Maybe people think Rauner was a Republican because he ran for and was elected as a candidate of the Republican Party.
Comment by Terry Salad Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:24 am
The 2021 amendments to the trust act cloud or outright prohibit communication much more than the original act did, but the State should still be on pretty solid ground.
But, I still suspect that future budgets from the Feds will have strings attached to funding for law enforcement that will be tougher to push back against. It’s going to be a few years of headaches either way.
Comment by fs Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:25 am
JB being so out in front in opposition to the Administration might be somewhat problematic given the 3 B budget deficit
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:29 am
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was all about State’s rights. Now? Not so much.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:35 am
At this rate, the General Assembly may need to pass a supplemental funding bill so the IL AG can hire more lawyers.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:38 am
Wonder if Brandon Johnson has a professional team preparing him with questions when he appears in Congress? If not, it would be to his advantage to start today to prepare for his time in the spotlight.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:46 am
Gee, it is almost like Republicans are always big fat liars about state’s rights and deferring to local communities when those units of government want something that the GOP doesn’t.
If only I could insert the “shocked Fry” Futurama gif without Rich getting mad at me.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:58 am
Nothing from the Mayor’s Office? Seems like DoJ probably gave a heads up before filing this, giving time for everyone to coordinate.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:58 am
I look forward to this legal case, just as I do the current federal cases regarding the PICA act. Testing the boundaries of federalism is a timely issue. We are either a Republic of States, or a Nation in the same vane that Abraham Lincoln wrestled with 165 years ago. I am firm in my belief that righteousness will prevail in the long run. It must.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 11:58 am
===Seems like DoJ probably gave a heads up before===
LOL
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:02 pm
Why does the Governor’s Office have a statement already?
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:07 pm
The litigation will drag on for a lengthy amount of time. However, the state budget will be negatively impacted over the next four years as one can only imagine the slow pay/no pay games the feds will implement.
Comment by Powell's shoebox Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:11 pm
=He was a RINO who hated CTU.=
A “Republican in name only” is still a Republican irrespective of whether you like him or don’t think he’s enough of a wackadoo for your personal tastes
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:16 pm
Right… Rauner was really a Dem. I mean, he got along so well with the then Democratic speaker. What great allies they were /s. lollololollolol.
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:25 pm
Oh to be a fly on the wall for one of BJ’s prep sessions for congress.
Comment by 44 Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:28 pm
=I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was all about State’s rights. Now? Not so much.=
True, now it is the other way around. Just depends on whose ox is getting gored at the time.
Comment by Mason County Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:35 pm
==Why does the Governor’s Office have a statement already?==
Because everyone knew it was coming. The WH made it pretty clear it was going to happen and was just waiting for Bondi to start. Same reason Costco corporate council is likely working on one as well.
Comment by jimbo Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:37 pm
Honestly, regardless of what the law requires or doesn’t, it seems like an easy way to avoid ICE picking up released criminals where they live after they are released, and causing distress to neighbors, is to allow ICE to pick them up from jail/prison beforehand.
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:41 pm
“By continuing to obstruct federal immigration authorities from apprehending dangerous criminals … .”
Yet ICE isn’t willing to get judicial warrants … .
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:50 pm
Not sure if the correct memo is linked.
Comment by JLW Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:50 pm
===now it is the other way around===
Not really. The main question here is whether state and local police should be required to criminally enforce purely bureaucratic federal edicts on matters of civil law.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:50 pm
==to allow ICE to pick them up from jail/prison beforehand.==
If they have a warrant to do so they can.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:52 pm
==cooperate and assist federal authorities with removing violent criminals ==
The Governor has ALWAYS said he is in favor of rounding up violent criminals. This is a red herring argument. The vast majority of these people are violent.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:54 pm
“ICE isn’t willing to get judicial warrants …”
There are many fewer Federal judges than state court judges. Getting a judicial warrant is not as easy as you make it seem. Administrative warrants are more common.
Comment by Hmmm Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 12:56 pm
are *not* violent
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:05 pm
===Administrative warrants are===
Pieces of paper with no legal weight for states.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:09 pm
===Getting a judicial warrant is not as easy as you make it seem. Administrative warrants are more common.===
And the 1998 IRS Hearings showed how vulnerable administrative warrants are to abuse - IRS’ use of same was restricted. Errors now showing up in ICE administrative warrants.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:26 pm
yep. fed power. state power. I think the real issue is how elected officials in Illinois keep talking. They act as if federal laws cannot be enforced. or they will keep illegal immigrants safe. and many keep acting as if those who crossed illegally committed no crime. which they did when they crossed illegally. so if more crimes are committed by any who crossed illegally, the action gets amped up. see a recent murder in the city of Chicago for an example. One of the charged men was here illegally and had an ICE tracking device on him.(hey Feds, why did you let him stay out?) we should make sure people who come into the US do so lawfully. and guard against criminal actions of all people, including US citizens.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:28 pm
The DOJ is wrong, the state doesn’t have to do what ICE tells them, as long as they don’t interfere. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue in Printz v. United States. The Court agreed with Printz. Writing for the 5–4 majority in the case, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded, “The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
Comment by Muddy trail Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:36 pm
Immigration is a federal responsibility and not shared with states. States do not have to take part in immigration enforcement and it’s hard to imagine what constitutes interference other than specifically interfering by blocking access or such. Just not taking part is not only legal, but what the Constitution anticipated.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Feb 6, 25 @ 1:50 pm