Eleanor Finch
Sanctuary cities offer some protection to immigrants by limiting information sharing with ICE. However, sanctuary cities are not complete safe havens and have exceptions, even for people with certain criminal convictions. The question of whether sanctuary cities are protected by the constitution is a complex one. The 10th Amendment states that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. However, in May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution | Yes |
| Which Amendment protects sanctuary cities? | 10th Amendment |
| What does the 10th Amendment say? | The federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs |
| Which courts have reaffirmed the 10th Amendment? | The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Do sanctuary cities protect immigrants? | Yes, by limiting information sharing with ICE |
| Do sanctuary cities have exceptions? | Yes, for people with certain criminal convictions |
| Do sanctuary cities cooperate with federal immigration authorities? | Yes, to some extent |
| Can sanctuary cities be banned? | Yes, in May 2017, Texas banned sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The 10th Amendment says the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including immigration programs
- The Supreme Court has reiterated the above in multiple cases over many decades
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the California Values Act, which has exceptions for noncitizens with felony convictions
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Texas Senate Bill 4 does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
- The 2018 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case declared the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional
The 10th Amendment says the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including immigration programs
The 10th Amendment says the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. This means that states can choose whether to cooperate with immigration enforcement. This has been reiterated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Multiple courts have reaffirmed that the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing states to cooperate with federal immigration-enforcement officers.
The Supreme Court has also reiterated this in multiple cases over many decades. For example, in May 2018, the Supreme Court declared the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine. PASPA prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. The Supreme Court ruled that PASPA’s prohibition violated the anticommandeering doctrine because it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.
However, it is important to note that virtually all sanctuary or welcoming policies have exceptions, even within those policies for people with certain criminal convictions. For example, the California Values Act, which has been upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has exceptions for noncitizens with felony convictions, as well as a range of other types of convictions. Most sanctuary cities have similar carve-outs, so it is not true that these jurisdictions are not, in some way, cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
In May 2017, Texas Senate Bill 4 was signed into law, effectively banning sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Militias and the Constitution: Protected or Not?
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court has reiterated the above in multiple cases over many decades
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. This means that states can choose whether to cooperate with immigration enforcement. This principle has been reaffirmed by the 9th, 5th, and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The California Values Act, which has been upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has exceptions for noncitizens with felony convictions, as well as a range of other types of convictions. Most sanctuary cities have similar carve-outs, meaning that they are, in some way, cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
In May 2017, Texas Senate Bill 4 was signed into law, effectively banning sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Bail Bondsmen: Constitutional Protectors of Democracy?
You may want to see also
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the California Values Act, which has exceptions for noncitizens with felony convictions
Sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. This has been reiterated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and multiple other courts. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld the California Values Act, which has exceptions for noncitizens with felony convictions. The Act limits information sharing with ICE, but it does not prevent cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has also blocked a California law limiting private jails. The court found that the law unconstitutionally intruded on the federal government's power over immigration. The court's decision stated that the law "conflicts with this federal power and discretion given to the Secretary in an area that remains in the exclusive realm of the federal government".
While sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution, there are limits to this protection. For example, in May 2017, Texas Senate Bill 4 effectively banned sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
RPGs: Free Speech or Dangerous? The Constitutional Debate
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$54.09 $66.99
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Texas Senate Bill 4 does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Sanctuary cities offer some protection to immigrants by limiting information sharing with ICE. However, virtually all sanctuary or welcoming policies have exceptions, even within those policies for, oftentimes, people with certain criminal convictions. For example, the California Values Act, which has been upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has exceptions for noncitizens with any felony conviction, as well as a range of other types of convictions. Most sanctuary cities have carve-outs like this, so it is not true that these jurisdictions are not, in some way, cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
The primary source for that authority is the Constitution. There’s a doctrine under the 10th Amendment that says that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. The Supreme Court has reiterated that in multiple cases over many decades. The basic principle is that states can choose whether to cooperate with immigration enforcement, and that’s been reiterated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but also the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and multiple courts have reaffirmed that the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing states to cooperate with federal immigration-enforcement officers.
In May 2017, Abbott signed Texas Senate Bill 4 into law, effectively banning sanctuary cities by charging county or city officials who refuse to work with federal officials, and by allowing police officers to check the immigration status of those they detain if they choose. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 2017, Vermont passed a law granting the Governor the sole authority to commit state or local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has also blocked an extreme Texas anti-immigrant law from going into effect. The ruling allows a lower court decision to remain in place, which blocks S.B. 4 from going into effect while the case is litigated. The decision comes after days of legal whiplash, during which the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect for a few hours before the Fifth Circuit ruled to temporarily block the law.
Protective Tariffs: Constitutional Quandary or Economic Savior?
You may want to see also
The 2018 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case declared the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional
Sanctuary cities offer some protection to immigrants by limiting information sharing with ICE. However, sanctuary cities are not completely protected by the Constitution. The primary source for that authority is the 10th Amendment, which says that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs. The Supreme Court has reiterated that in multiple cases over many decades. The basic principle is that states can choose whether to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
In 2018, the Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case declared the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional. The case was formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office. The pro-betting side characterised the federal government's position as commandeering of federal laws, which the states would have the responsibility to enforce. The anti-betting side relied on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to keep PASPA in force. The outcome of the case was suggested to be likely to be cited in future cases involving the legalization of marijuana in which a similar state–federal question exists. On May 14, 2018, the Court reversed lower court findings by favouring New Jersey in deciding that PASPA violated the anticommandeering principle by a 7–2 vote and declaring the entire law unconstitutional by a 6–3 vote. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act provision prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violates the anti-commandeering rule and is unconstitutional. The oral arguments in the case were considered to have gone favourably towards New Jersey and against the leagues, and many commentators believed that the Supreme Court would find that PASPA was unconstitutional. In anticipation of the Court's ruling, several states began setting legislation in place to allow for legal sports gambling, contingent on the results of the Supreme Court case. By June 5, 2018, Delaware became the first state other than Nevada to legalize sports gambling in the wake of the Court decision. The New Jersey legislature had prepared a bill legalizing sports gambling prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and upon the Court's decision, formally introduced the bill the same day; the bill had undergone several revisions, and had passed both houses and signed into law by Governor Murphy by June 11, 2018. In some cases, the leagues became involved in helping to establish the legislation to be favourable for them as well, should the Court find for New Jersey.
Green Card Holders: Constitutional Protections and Their Limits
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the primary source for that authority is the Constitution. There’s a doctrine under the 10th Amendment that says that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce federal programs, including federal immigration programs.
It means that states can choose whether to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
No, but virtually all sanctuary or welcoming policies have exceptions, even within those policies for, oftentimes, people with certain criminal convictions.
The California Values Act is one example of a sanctuary city policy that has been upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2017, Vermont passed a law granting the Governor the sole authority to commit state or local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
Republicans have painted sanctuary cities as complete safe havens for immigrants, but this is not true as most sanctuary cities have exceptions and do cooperate with federal immigration authorities in some way.
