Sanctuary Cities: Breaking Federal Law Or Not?

The question of whether sanctuary cities break federal law is a complex one. Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with national governments in enforcing immigration law. While there are specific federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities, the federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal law. The legality of sanctuary cities hinges on the interpretation of harboring undocumented immigrants, with federal courts divided on the exact definition. Sanctuary cities argue that they are not actively blocking information sharing and are instead opting not to use their resources to help federal agents. The Supreme Court has also played a role, with rulings impacting the ability of the federal government to enforce immigration law unilaterally.

Sanctuary cities and Section 1373

Sanctuary cities and states have been a source of controversy in the United States, with critics arguing that they violate federal law and put public safety at risk. However, the legality of sanctuary jurisdictions is a complex issue that involves the interpretation of specific sections of the US Code, such as Section 1373.

Section 1373 of Title 8 of the US Code states that federal, state, or local government entities or officials cannot prohibit or restrict the exchange of information with federal immigration officers regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. In other words, while sanctuary jurisdictions are not required to actively assist in immigration enforcement, they cannot obstruct it by prohibiting the sharing of information. This distinction is important because it means that sanctuary cities and states are not necessarily violating Section 1373 by refusing to use their resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants.

The Justice Department has flagged certain jurisdictions as potentially violating Section 1373, and there have been legal battles between the department and sanctuary jurisdictions. However, as of 2024, no courts have found a specific jurisdiction to be in violation of Section 1373. Additionally, at least three federal judges have found Section 1373 itself to be unconstitutional, although these rulings applied only to the specific jurisdictions involved in the litigations and not nationwide.

The debate around sanctuary cities and Section 1373 is further complicated by the principle of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, which prohibit the federal government from commandeering states and cities by compelling them to enforce federal laws at their own expense. This means that while the federal government can require or prohibit certain acts, it cannot force state and local governments to actively enforce federal immigration law.

In conclusion, the legality of sanctuary cities and Section 1373 is a complex and ongoing debate in the United States. While critics argue that sanctuary jurisdictions violate federal law, supporters counter that these policies are about the allocation of resources and bolstering trust between residents and law enforcement. The interpretation of Section 1373 and the application of federalism principles play a key role in this debate, and the outcome of legal battles between the Justice Department and sanctuary jurisdictions will be pivotal in shaping the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.

The Justice Department's fight against sanctuary jurisdictions

In March 2017, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed that sanctuary policies violate federal law, specifically U.S. Code Section 1373, which relates to the sharing of immigration information between local agencies and federal immigration authorities. Sessions threatened to withhold federal grants and funds from jurisdictions that did not comply with this statute. The Justice Department flagged several jurisdictions that "potentially violate" Section 1373 and sent letters to 23 jurisdictions over concerns that their laws "may violate" this section.

However, the claim that sanctuary cities violate federal law is disputed. While the Constitution states that federal law shall be supreme over state and local law, there is no single understanding of what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction, and the range of policies under that label varies widely. Cities and states that proclaim themselves as sanctuaries are not nullifying or violating federal law; instead, they are choosing not to use their resources to help federal agents identify and deport undocumented immigrants. These policies are about the allocation and prioritization of scarce public funds and bolstering trust between residents and law enforcement. As long as these jurisdictions are not actively blocking information sharing, they are not violating the law.

Despite this, the Justice Department has continued its efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities. In February 2020, Attorney General William Barr announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be taking a variety of actions against sanctuary jurisdictions, including lawsuits, debarment from funds, and potential criminal prosecution under the harboring provisions of federal law. Barr argued that sanctuary policies jeopardize public safety and violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution by inhibiting immigration enforcement. He specifically mentioned suing the New Jersey Governor and Attorney General for prohibiting state officials from sharing information about criminal aliens with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and highlighted a complaint against King County, Washington, for forbidding the deportation of aliens using the area's international airport.

The debate over sanctuary cities continues, with legal battles ongoing between the Justice Department and sanctuary jurisdictions. While the Justice Department argues that sanctuary cities violate federal law and endanger public safety, proponents of sanctuary policies maintain that they are lawful and necessary to protect immigrant communities and foster cooperation between immigrants and law enforcement.

Sanctuary cities and anti-harbouring laws

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law. In the US, this movement began in the early 1980s, challenging the US government's refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. Sanctuary cities undertake the responsibilities of receiving and processing an influx of migrants, and providing services and resources for them to acclimate and live in the country and communities in which they arrive.

Proponents of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, and that law enforcement resources can be prioritised towards better purposes. They also argue that sanctuary cities reduce migrants' fears of deportation, separation of migrant families, and encourage reporting of crimes, use of health and social services, and enrollment of children into public schools.

Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law, and that sanctuary cities increase crime.

While there are specific federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities, the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from commandeering states and cities by compelling them to actively enforce federal laws at their own expense.

In terms of anti-harbouring laws, federal immigration officials have attempted to argue that sanctuary cities violate Section 1324 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which imposes penalties on those who "conceal, harbor, or shield from detention" undocumented immigrants. However, this claim does not hold up as federal courts require affirmative conduct such as providing shelter, transportation, and direction about how to obtain false documentation to constitute "harbouring". The actions of sanctuary cities, such as refusing to gather immigration-related data or detain undocumented people, do not meet this definition.

Despite this, supporters of the president's policies continue to argue that protection of immigrants from enforcement makes communities less safe and undermines the rule of law.

The Supreme Court's stance on federalism

In the case of sanctuary cities, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on their legality, but lower federal courts have found that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce immigration laws. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the federal government may not "commandeer" state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law, as seen in the case of Reno v. Condon, which dealt with the disclosure of drivers' personal information.

The legality of sanctuary cities is still a matter of debate, with some arguing that they violate federal law, while others claim that they are protected by the principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue, but lower courts have found that sanctuary cities are not violating the law by simply refusing to use their resources to aid in deportation efforts.

The impact of sanctuary cities on crime rates

Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. While there is no single definition of a sanctuary city, it is generally considered to be a city that does not cooperate with the federal government in terms of immigration policies. Sanctuary cities are often mentioned in debates about immigration policies and the safety of communities. One perspective argues that sanctuary policies could increase crime rates by attracting criminals and lowering the opportunity cost of crime. However, another perspective suggests that sanctuary policies do not raise crime rates and may even decrease them.

Research on the impact of sanctuary policies on crime rates has produced mixed findings. Some studies have found no evidence that sanctuary policies cause an increase in overall crime rates. In fact, there is some weaker evidence that sanctuary policies may lead to a decrease in property crimes. This could be due to the increased trust between residents and police, which discourages criminal activity. Other studies have found that sanctuary cities have lower-than-average crime rates, higher household incomes, and lower poverty rates on average compared to non-sanctuary cities.

On the other hand, critics of sanctuary policies argue that they endanger the public and compromise the safety of law-abiding citizens by releasing criminal aliens back into the community. They claim that sanctuary policies create a "pull factor" that increases illegal immigration and prevents federal immigration authorities from enforcing the law. However, supporters of sanctuary policies counter that these policies are necessary to encourage undocumented immigrants to report incidents when they become witnesses or victims of crimes. By doing so, sanctuary policies can improve public safety and better integrate immigrants into communities.

Overall, the impact of sanctuary cities on crime rates is complex and multifaceted. While there is no clear consensus on the exact effects, the existing research suggests that sanctuary policies do not necessarily lead to an increase in crime and may even have positive impacts on public safety and community well-being.

Frequently asked questions