SCOTUS opinion with implications for sanctuary cities

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by NJlonghorn, May 14, 2018.

  1. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    The Supreme Court released its opinion in Murphy v. NCAA today, holding that Congress cannot force states to prohibit sports betting. If Congress wants to make sports betting illegal under Federal law, fine. But Congress does not have authority to commandeer state law for that purpose. Three liberal justices dissented on other issues, but the decision was unanimous on the core anti-commandeering question.

    This case has huge implications for whether the Federal government can force states to cooperate in immigration enforcement. I always though SCOTUS would side with the sanctuary cities on that issue, but now I'm thinking it will be unanimous.

    Note that this has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are a good idea -- just whether the Federal government can legally stop them.
     
  2. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    Given that border protection and security is one of the few areas the Federal Government SHOULD be in charge of, I have to disagree that any sanctuary city argument will be shot down unanimously.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    But that isn't the issue. Nobody disputes the federal government's power to secure the border and enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is to what extent the federal government can forcibly enlist state and local government into the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life 5,000+ Posts

    Wouldn't it be up to the federal government to enforce the law? If there is a city deeming itself a sanctuary city then couldn't INS set up shop in that city to identify and deport those in the country illegally? While it wouldn't change the city's stance nor would there be much cooperation it would certainly make it harder for illegal immigrants to find a comfy location to reside.
     
  5. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Absolutely. ICE could open up a massive immigration enforcement complex in the heart of San Francisco if it wanted to.
     
  6. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life 5,000+ Posts

    It would be a very interesting test to do something like that. It gets old hearing the same old arguments over and over. If the US govt wants to enforce the laws then dot it but dont expect a lot of cooperation from some cities.
     
  7. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Liquor Man

    To what extent did the federal government forcibly enlist state and local governments to comply with integration laws in the 60s?
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    The difference is that the big federal integration law is the 14th Amendment, and it applies directly to the states. There's no constitutional mandate that states enforce federal immigration laws.
     
  9. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    In general, I agree with the ruling. I think that the Federal Government has seized too much power from the states. If the people of a state want legalized gambling for tax purposes, what business is that of the Federal Government?

    The Feds having one set of laws and the states a different set seems to be working in states that legalized marijuana. It may be legal to smoke grass in Colorado, but if you do business with the Federal government, better not bust any drug tests.
     
  10. mb227

    mb227 1,000+ Posts

    Nothing about that decision could be used in a manner that forces the federal government to provide funds to a sanctuary city. It essentially is the same as the drinking age years ago...feds said comply or lose funding. If a city decides that they would rather harbor illegal aliens, then they don't get federal funds to defray the expenses of providing services.

    Cut the cities off the federal funding teet and some of them will change their minds in a hurry...probably everywhere that is not in the Republic of Californiastan.
     
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    It's not as simple as that, and ironically, I'm going to quote a post in which I got my *** totally kicked because it explains the issue well - better than the case at issue.

    The distinction between the drinking age issue and sanctuary cities is that the federal funding put at risk in the drinking age issue was at least arguably connected to the funding that was put at risk. A general ban on federal funding for sanctuary cities is going to be a problem because most of the funding won't be related to illegal immigration. They'll have to find federal funding that is related to illegal immigration to make it work.

     
  12. AustinHorn24

    AustinHorn24 < 25 Posts

    Democrats in Congress and California specifically would block funding for any new ICE infrastructure in California. I suppose they could do it, but they would have to re-route money/resources away from other places to do it.
     
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    You're absolutely correct. The last thing Democrats (especially California Democrats) would want to see is stronger enforcement of immigration laws. They've made it clear that their goal is not only weaker enforcement but in the case of California Democrats, active resistance to enforcement. And why not? Sloppy enforcement of immigration laws over the last 30 years helped give them an easy 55 electoral votes, 2 safe Democratic senators, 39 Democratic House members (and maybe 1 or 2 more after the next election), a safe governorship, and super-majorities in both houses of their state legislature. It wasn't the only factor, of course. Having an incompetent and stupid California GOP helped a lot, but it was surely a significant factor.

    I was referring to what could constitutionally be done, not necessarily what was possible through the political process.
     

Share This Page