New Sanctuary State Laws Prohibit Enforcement of Federal Laws

When forced to choose between following federal laws or state laws, which would you choose?

Under the structure of federalism outlined in the Constitution, this question should never have to be asked. However, the passage of sanctuary state laws in California and Washington have made it a reality. The actions of these states to selectively choose when the Constitution holds authority sets a dangerous precedent that should be concerning regardless of where you stand on the issue of immigration.

Effective as of January this year, California’s sanctuary state law, SB 54 bans state and local law enforcement from working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In addition, under the new law, local businesses are being told that they are not allowed to let ICE agents on their premises or to give them access to employee citizenship documents. Cooperating with ICE agents without a court order would cause employers to face fines ranging from $1,500 to $10,000.

For many business owners, this new law places them into a legal grey zone that can be difficult to navigate. Employers must try to abide by state laws requiring them to not cooperate with ICE agents, while also avoiding charges of federal obstruction of justice for not providing ICE agents with requested information.

Title 8 of the United States Code section 1505 defines obstruction of justice as threats or forcible efforts to impede or obstruct administration of federal law by any department or agency of the United States.

These sanctuary state laws, along with the laws in many sanctuary cities, show a deliberate attempt to impede the work of ICE agents. Additionally, businesses are forced to choose either to cooperate with ICE agents and face state fines or not cooperate and face federal obstruction charges.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has already taken action against private businesses. On January 3, he filed a law suit against Motel 6 for cooperating with ICE agents and providing them with guest information. Ferguson called this release of information a violation of consumer civil rights and the right to privacy.

According to Article VI of the Constitution, “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”

The actions of California and Washington show a disregard for this hierarchy as they attempt to assert their state laws over the authority of Congress to legislate issues of immigration and of the executive branch to enforce those laws. Yet, the signing statement made by California Governor Jerry Brown said that the sanctuary state law was passed to defend the civil rights and right to privacy that all individuals have under the constitution.

This effort to selectively choose what part of the Constitution should be followed and what can be ignored sets a dangerous precedent. If allowed, there is nothing to stop future state lawmakers, or even presidents, from deciding that rights given by the Constitution to the American people no longer need to be followed.

It is one thing for state legislatures to take a stance on federal policies and areas of legislation, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, when state legislatures start to pass legislation that directly conflicts with the enforcement of federal laws, that state has exceeded its constitutional authority.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *