Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Thermal said:
Their time will likely come up to be tested as well. The Feds lost this round. They will be likely to lose them all if they can't come up with a convincing argument, which they spectacularly failed to do in this case.
Click to expand...
Which case are you referring to?
 
The lawsuit against NYC cited many federal laws that are still in force and currently being violated by NYC and other municipalities.
 
Thermal said:
...the one we have been continuously discussing... that I just pointed out to you... that dirtywick was also talking about... USG v Chicago et al
Click to expand...
That ruling does not apply to NYC. Its a different Federal Court district. Chicago's laws are also different than NYC's and much younger. NYC's sanctuary policies go back to the 1980's.
 
Hercules56 said:
That ruling does not apply to NYC. Its a different Federal Court district. Chicago's laws are also different than NYC's and much younger. NYC's sanctuary policies go back to the 1980's.
Click to expand...
...I didn't say it applied to NYC. No one did. In fact, we weren't talking about NYC at all. Are you feeling ok?
 
Hercules56 said:
You're wrong.

States are absolutely required to abide by Federal law.

Your States Rights argument is wrong.

Supremacy Clause still rules the day.
Click to expand...
Your problem is that federal immigration law does not require the states to do the things in question. They're voluntary cooperation arrangements that some states/cities have opted out of.

Congress could try to pass a law requiring the states to enforce federal immigration laws, but no such law is currently on the books.
 
Thermal said:
No. Any other questions or displays of woeful lack of comprehension you'd like to display?
Click to expand...

Yes, there were:
Hercules56 said:
You're wrong.

States are absolutely required to abide by Federal law.

Your States Rights argument is wrong.

Supremacy Clause still rules the day.
Click to expand...

If @Hercules56 had read the Illinois decision he's been ignoring, he'd be aware that one of the more important reasons the US government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 was thrown out of court was the binding precedent set by Murphy v NCAA, which was a state's rights case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. The Illinois decision cites Murphy 33 times, starting on page 17 and continuing through page 56.

It is poetic justice that @Hercules56's MAGA propaganda is being rejected by courts due to the Murphy precedent, because the Supreme Court justices who dissented in that case accused the majority of tailoring their decision to please then-President Donald Trump. I will say more about this in a moment.

Hercules56 said:
Unless a Federal law has been stricken by a Federal court and that removal has not been suspended by a higher court pending appeal, the federal law must be abided by.
Click to expand...

In particular, the United States government must abide by federal law. Federal law includes the 10th amendment to the US Constitution. The US government must also abide by decisions of the Supreme Court that tell lower courts how the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment are to be interpreted when the US government wants to override state laws concerning such things as gun ownership, sale of marijuana, and sanctuary cities.

In both the Illinois case and in the NYC case that @Hercules56 has been touting, the US government has been relying on arguments that ignore a number of federal laws and Supreme Court decisions, including Murphy v NCAA.

Hercules56 said:
There are MANY federal immigration laws mandating local and state cooperation that have not been suspended by federal courts, and some Sanctuary entities still refuse to abide by and cooperate with them.
Click to expand...

The part of that sentence that precedes the comma is true. So far as I am aware, no federal court has yet agreed with the part of that sentence that follows the comma.

Murphy v NCAA

A federal law passed in 1992 (PASPA) prohibited most states from allowing gambling on sports events. In 2011, through a non-binding referendum, the voters of New Jersey let it be known they wished to amend the state's constitution to permit sports gambling. The very next year, New Jersey passed a state law that allowed gambling on sports at the state's casinos and racetracks.

Several professional sports leagues, together with the US Department of Justice (DOJ), said the state of New Jersey couldn't do that, and sued in federal court. New Jersey responded to that lawsuit by saying the federal law (PASPA) violated the Tenth Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Jersey lost in the federal district court, and lost again in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. New Jersey amended its law, but was again sued, and lost again at both the district court and the appeals court.

This time, New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The central question of the case was:

Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States?​

As precedent for its position, New Jersey cited a previous Supreme Court decision in which a federal law was found to be unconstitutional.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said he was in favor of legalizing sports gambling. After Trump became president, however, his acting Solicitor General sided with the professional sports leagues.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court sided with New Jersey.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared: “A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.” Alito's opinion was joined by Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan, and joined in part by Stephen Breyer. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. (Stephen Breyer joined their dissent in part, for reasons that are not relevant to this thread.)

Ginsberg and Sotomayor suggested the majority decision had been motivated in part by their desire to legalize sports gambling, as President Trump had advocated.

The majority opinion did not stop at ruling PASPA unconstitutional. It went on to invent new doctrine that lower courts are required to use when deciding whether federal laws or actions are based upon a claim that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause should preempt the Tenth Amendment's guarantee of states' rights.

That binding precedent played a major role in the Illinois decision we've been discussing. (By "we", I mean all of us except for @Hercules56. As usual, @Hercules56 was unaware of what we've been discussing. Upon being informed of the active topic, he now pretends the binding Supreme Court precedent that played such a large role in the Illinois decision is not relevant to the NYC case in which the US government has made essentially the same unconstitutional arguments.)

For those who don't want to read pages 17 through 56 of the Illinois decision, here is a short excerpt that starts to explain why the Supreme Court's decision in Murphy v NCAA established binding precedent that means the US government's arguments (in both the Illinois and NYC cases) are unconstitutional.
2. Preemption

Federal law can preempt state law in three ways: express preemption, conflict preemption, or field preemption. Murphy, 584 U.S. at 477. [....]

Certain rules of preemption flow from federalism. First, given Congress’s limited powers, preemption of a state law must be based in the Constitution or a validly enacted federal law, not “some brooding federal interest.” [citation omitted]

Second, a federal law only has preemptive effect if it regulates private individuals, whether alone or in conjunction with regulation of States. Murphy, 584 U.S. at 477–78. This is so because Congress may only legislate upon individuals, as is reflected in the Framers’ debates during the Constitutional Convention and their deliberate rejection of a plan that would have allowed Congress to legislate on States. See New York, 505 U.S. at 164–66.

Third, courts assume that Congress does not preempt lightly. [....]

3. Anticommandeering

Federal preemption is also bounded by the anticommandeering doctrine. Although recognized long after the Founding Era, anticommandeering “is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” Murphy, 584 U.S. at 470. Centered on the principle of voluntariness, the anticommandeering doctrine holds that “[t]he Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” New York, 505 U.S. at 188.
Click to expand...

As you can see from that excerpt, the judge was careful to cite binding precedent for every step of his reasoning. Most of those precedents are decisions of the US Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Yes, there were:


If @Hercules56 had read the Illinois decision he's been ignoring, he'd be aware that one of the more important reasons the US government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 was thrown out of court was the binding precedent set by Murphy v NCAA, which was a state's rights case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. The Illinois decision cites Murphy 33 times, starting on page 17 and continuing through page 56.

It is poetic justice that @Hercules56's MAGA propaganda is being rejected by courts due to the Murphy precedent, because the Supreme Court justices who dissented in that case accused the majority of tailoring their decision to please then-President Donald Trump. I will say more about this in a moment.



In particular, the United States government must abide by federal law. Federal law includes the 10th amendment to the US Constitution. The US government must also abide by decisions of the Supreme Court that tell lower courts how the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment are to be interpreted when the US government wants to override state laws concerning such things as gun ownership, sale of marijuana, and sanctuary cities.

In both the Illinois case and in the NYC case that @Hercules56 has been touting, the US government has been relying on arguments that ignore a number of federal laws and Supreme Court decisions, including Murphy v NCAA.



The part of that sentence that precedes the comma is true. So far as I am aware, no federal court has yet agreed with the part of that sentence that follows the comma.

Murphy v NCAA

A federal law passed in 1992 (PASPA) prohibited most states from allowing gambling on sports events. In 2011, through a non-binding referendum, the voters of New Jersey let it be known they wished to amend the state's constitution to permit sports gambling. The very next year, New Jersey passed a state law that allowed gambling on sports at the state's casinos and racetracks.

Several professional sports leagues, together with the US Department of Justice (DOJ), said the state of New Jersey couldn't do that, and sued in federal court. New Jersey responded to that lawsuit by saying the federal law (PASPA) violated the Tenth Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Jersey lost in the federal district court, and lost again in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. New Jersey amended its law, but was again sued, and lost again at both the district court and the appeals court.

This time, New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The central question of the case was:

Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States?​

As precedent for its position, New Jersey cited a previous Supreme Court decision in which a federal law was found to be unconstitutional.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said he was in favor of legalizing sports gambling. After Trump became president, however, his acting Solicitor General sided with the professional sports leagues.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court sided with New Jersey.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared: “A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.” Alito's opinion was joined by Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan, and joined in part by Stephen Breyer. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. (Stephen Breyer joined their dissent in part, for reasons that are not relevant to this thread.)

Ginsberg and Sotomayor suggested the majority decision had been motivated in part by their desire to legalize sports gambling, as President Trump had advocated.

The majority opinion did not stop at ruling PASPA unconstitutional. It went on to invent new doctrine that lower courts are required to use when deciding whether federal laws or actions are based upon a claim that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause should preempt the Tenth Amendment's guarantee of states' rights.

That binding precedent played a major role in the Illinois decision we've been discussing. (By "we", I mean all of us except for @Hercules56. As usual, @Hercules56 was unaware of what we've been discussing. Upon being informed of the active topic, he now pretends the binding Supreme Court precedent that played such a large role in the Illinois decision is not relevant to the NYC case in which the US government has made essentially the same unconstitutional arguments.)

For those who don't want to read pages 17 through 56 of the Illinois decision, here is a short excerpt that starts to explain why the Supreme Court's decision in Murphy v NCAA established binding precedent that means the US government's arguments (in both the Illinois and NYC cases) are unconstitutional.


As you can see from that excerpt, the judge was careful to cite binding precedent for every step of his reasoning. Most of those precedents are decisions of the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
If this is all accurate, the recent lawsuit against NYC will be quickly thrown out.

However as we learned from Heller and Bruen, Supreme Court decisions do not stop municipalities from trying again and again from pushing issues that were seemingly resolved.
 
As I'm reading the NYC complaint, it relies on the Supremacy Clause, and claims that NYC's laws violate it by creating obstacles to the Feds. These obstacles seem to be only that NYC elects not to do the Feds' job for them. Unless I'm missing something rather large, then yeah, the NYC gig, when it goes beyond filing the complaint, will go down in flames rather quickly?
 
Thermal said:
As I'm reading the NYC complaint, it relies on the Supremacy Clause, and claims that NYC's laws violate it by creating obstacles to the Feds. These obstacles seem to be only that NYC elects not to do the Feds' job for them. Unless I'm missing something rather large, then yeah, the NYC gig, when it goes beyond filing the complaint, will go down in flames rather quickly?
Click to expand...
It is a crime to be in the USA illegally and failing to register with DHS after 30 days. If local authorities have probable cause that such a person is in their custody, they are morally and legally obliged to detain such person until the feds can take custody. Sanctuary entities are refusing to do this.
 
Hercules56 said:
It is a crime to be in the USA illegally and failing to register with DHS after 30 days. If local authorities have probable cause that such a person is in their custody, they are
morally and legally obliged to detain such person until the feds can take custody. Sanctuary entities are refusing to do this.
Click to expand...
What you can be detained on grounds of morality? :eek:
 
Hercules56 said:
It is a crime to be in the USA illegally and failing to register with DHS after 30 days. If local authorities have probable cause that such a person is in their custody, they are morally and legally obliged to detain such person until the feds can take custody. Sanctuary entities are refusing to do this.
Click to expand...
The counterargument is that they are neither morally or legally bound to comply with such fast and loose standards, such as casually deputizing a city to assume Federal enforcement. If the Feds have determined that a given migrant is in violation of whatever, they get their warrant, that the city is in fact legally bound to honor. If the Feds don't bother doing their end, and expect the cities to help them detain mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ without warrants, the cities for damn sure shouldn't partake in that horse ◊◊◊◊.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
The counterargument is that they are neither morally or legally bound to comply with such fast and loose standards, such as casually deputizing a city to assume Federal enforcement. If the Feds have determined that a given migrant is in violation of whatever, they get their warrant, that the city is in fact legally bound to honor. If the Feds don't bother doing their end, and expect the cities to help them detain mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ without warrants, the cities for damn sure shouldn't partake in that horse ◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...
If there is probable cause that a crime has been commited, police are legally obligated to detain.
 
Hercules56 said:
If there is probable cause that a crime has been commited, police are legally obligated to detain.
Click to expand...
As far as their authority reaches, yes. Or rather, at their discretion. Cops are under no obligation to detain every jaywalker they see, for example. They certainly have no Federal enforcement powers.

Get ya warrant if ya wants ya bad guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom