Federal government looks to Seventh Circuit to thwart Illinois sanctuary policies

The Trump administration has maintained that Illinois' sanctuary policies interfere with federal officers' ability to do their job.CHICAGO (CN) — A Seventh Circuit panel appeared dubious Thursday about whether Illinois’ sanctuary policies infringe on federal immigration authority.As the Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement nationwide, many locales adopted policies that limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies.Since the TRUST Act’s enactment in 2017, Illinois has prohibited local law enforcement agencies from participating in immigration enforcement. Similarly, Chicago’s “Welcoming City Ordinance” prohibits city employees from asking about an individual’s immigration status, bars immigration officials from using city facilities for immigration enforcement and directs the Chicago Police Department not to honor a civil immigration detainer or administrative warrant.A lower court dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to the sanctuary laws for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and the administration swiftly appealed to the Seventh Circuit.The federal government has maintained that federal immigration laws preempt the city and state statutes. Department of Justice attorney Michael Talent described to the three-judge panel how federal immigration authorities are often forced to stake out detention facilities because local authorities won’t cooperate with them.U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder Jr. agreed the policies can make it harder to enforce federal immigration law. “But how do those challenges rise to the level of presenting an obstacle or barrier to the enforcement of immigration law?” the Donald Trump appointee asked.Talent responded that it’s clear Congress intended for undocumented people to move through state custody into federal custody in an orderly manner. He said the state officials have impeded federal officers’ ability to swiftly effectuate that process.In a similar vein, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple pressed Justice Department attorneys on what exact portion of the statutes they were challenging.“Your characterization today that your people are going to be met by armed state guards [who] aren’t going to let you into the facility,” the Reagan appointee, who appeared remotely, said. “Really, what is your beef?”Talent responded that it’s not just that armed officials won’t let federal immigration officials into certain facilities or provide them with relevant information; it’s that it’s more dangerous for federal immigration authorities to have to arrest people out in public.Alex Hemmer, an Illinois assistant attorney general, argued before the three-judge panel that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly requires states to pledge police resources to federal immigration enforcement officials, to execute immigration detainers and transfer state prisoners to federal custody or respond to federal immigration investigative inquiries.“A contrary reading of the INA, one in which Congress did command the states to provide those resources to the federal government, would plainly violate the anti-commandeering rule, which the Supreme Court has explained protects individual liberty and promotes political autonomy in our federalist system,” Hemmer said. “The United States has advanced the arguments that it makes today in over a dozen cases challenging laws like ours, but every court who has reached those arguments, including the Ninth Circuit and the California case, has rejected them. This court should not break from the Ninth Circuit but should instead affirm the judgment below.”U.S. Circuit Judge Rebecca Taibleson, also a Trump appointee, pressed Talent further on what exactly the statute requires from state and local governments.“Congress has sort of been a little bit cute or cagey about what the states are required or not required to do, and has clearly stopped short of requiring any information, handovers, or custody handovers,” she said. “And given that, it’s a bit much to ask us to transform these sorts of ambiguities into a mandate through the mechanism of conflict preemption. I realize that’s more of a statement than a question, but I welcome any responses.”“I think there’s a meaningful distinction between whether or not a state must enter into agreement or must provide information versus what we have here, which is we’re just not going to provide any information whatsoever,” he said.The three-judge panel took the case under advisement Thursday and did not indicate when it might rule.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads