Can the 10th Amendment shield states from federal pressure, or will ongoing lawsuits force local cops back into immigration roles?

Question

Accepted Answer

Yes—the 10th Amendment gives states strong protection against being forced into federal immigration enforcement, and that is the core legal advantage New York is relying on. The key doctrine is anti-commandeering: the federal government generally cannot require state or local officers to carry out a federal regulatory program. Legal analyses and several recent lower-court rulings say 287(g) agreements are voluntary, not mandatory. That matters because New York is not trying to block ICE itself from acting; it is telling its own agencies and localities not to use state and local personnel for civil immigration enforcement. That makes the sheriffs’ and any federal challenge an uphill fight. A federal judge has already refused to block New York’s ban while the case proceeds, and courts in other recent sanctuary-policy disputes, including in Minnesota and Los Angeles, have largely sided with states and cities on similar anti-commandeering grounds. The available case law also suggests ICE detainers are requests, not commands. Still, the lawsuits are not meaningless. Sheriffs are arguing New York cannot strip them of authority to maintain federally approved agreements, and federal challengers may argue preemption or discrimination against federal operations. If a higher court were to find that parts of the law conflict with federal statutes, some provisions could be narrowed. For now, though, the law remains in effect, and the stronger legal position appears to be New York’s: loca…

New York Enforces ICE Partnership Ban as 15 Sheriffs Challenge 287(g) Law

Sources

Sources

New York Enforces ICE Partnership Ban as 15 Sheriffs Challenge 287(g) Law

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories