City Law Enforcement: Federal Law Exemption Explored

Sanctuary cities, which limit the enforcement of federal immigration laws, are an example of how a city can choose not to enforce federal law. The Biden administration's rescinding of a Trump-era executive order imposing penalties on these cities is an example of preemption, a legal concept that allows the federal government to override local or state laws that conflict with federal laws. Preemption conflicts between state and local governments can arise in areas such as energy policy, firearms regulations, and immigration enforcement.

Sanctuary cities and limits on federal immigration law enforcement

Sanctuary cities are municipalities that limit or deny their cooperation with federal authorities in enforcing immigration law. They do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties but instead refuse to help enforce federal immigration law.

Proponents of sanctuary cities argue that they help further public safety, reduce illegal immigrants' fears of deportation, encourage reporting of crimes, and improve access to health and social services. Sanctuary policies also substantially reduce deportations of illegal immigrants without criminal records. Supporters also argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, and that law enforcement resources can be better prioritised. In addition, when local law enforcement agencies are not involved in deportations, immigrant communities are better integrated, more secure, and more involved.

Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that they undermine the rule of law and that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law. They also highlight concerns about public safety, pointing to cases where illegal immigrants involved in crimes were released instead of being handed over to immigration authorities. Critics also claim that sanctuary cities act as magnets for illegal immigration, attracting more people to enter unlawfully, and that these cities place a strain on local resources as illegal immigrants may access public services like healthcare, housing, and education.

In recent years, sanctuary policies have become a political, legal, and narrative battle between those who seek to protect the rights of immigrants and communities of colour and those who oppose them. The federal government has built a massive infrastructure that exploits state and local resources in the name of detaining and deporting immigrants. The Trump administration, for example, released a list of immigration principles to Congress that included curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities and an executive order declaring that jurisdictions that "refuse to comply" with federal law on information sharing between local and federal authorities would be ineligible to receive federal grants. The Biden administration rescinded this order in 2021.

Preemption of Boulder's ban on certain automatic firearms

In the United States, the federal government can preempt local or state laws if those laws conflict with federal laws. This legal concept is known as preemption.

In the case of Boulder, Colorado, the city's ban on the possession, sale, and transfer of certain types of automatic firearms and magazines was preempted by state law. On March 12, 2021, a Boulder County District Court judge struck down the city's "Assault Weapons Possession, Sale, and Transfer Ban" ordinance, ruling that it was illegal under Colorado's statutory ban on local laws that prohibit the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms that an individual may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. This ruling was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Boulder residents Robert Chambers and James Jones, who sued the city in 2018, just days after the Boulder City Council enacted the gun ban.

The City of Boulder's ban on certain automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines was enacted in response to the tragic shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018. The ordinances passed by the City Council banned the possession of most assault weapons within city limits, prohibited magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and raised the legal age to possess firearms from 18 to 21. However, the Boulder County District Court ruled that the city's ban was void as it was preempted by state law.

Following the district court ruling and a subsequent shooting in Boulder on March 22, 2021, the state legislature repealed the state's preemption statute. As a result, state law now expressly allows municipalities to enact firearms regulations that are stricter than those found in state statutes. This change enables cities like Boulder to implement their own restrictions on firearms, even if they go beyond what is prohibited by state or federal law.

Penalties for local officials who enact firearms ordinances

In the United States, federal law is binding on all state and local governments, but federal preemption of state law is uncommon in the area of firearms regulation. Local governments have broad authority to regulate firearms and ammunition unless there is a conflict with state law.

Some states have enacted preemption laws that subject local officials to penalties for enacting firearms ordinances. For example, in Florida, local officials who enact any firearm rules or regulations are subject to fines of up to $5,000, and they may also be removed from office. In Kentucky, if a local official violates the state's firearm preemption law, they are subject to criminal penalties, and individuals and organizations can seek damages and litigation fees.

The authority to enact local ordinances typically rests with the city council, which is a group of elected officials who make decisions on behalf of the city's residents. The process of enacting local ordinances usually involves several steps, including the proposal, drafting, public notice and hearings, and enactment. Legal experts within the local government draft the ordinance's language, including any penalties for non-compliance, and ensure consistency with state and federal laws.

While federal preemption of local laws is uncommon in firearms regulation, there have been instances where federal rulings have preempted local laws. For example, in 2017, the Trump administration introduced an executive order that included penalties for "sanctuary cities," which limit the enforcement and prosecution of federal immigration laws. This order was later rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021.

Energy Choice Act superseding Lawrence's renewable energy plan

In the United States, federal law takes precedence over state or local laws in the event of a conflict, a legal concept known as preemption. An example of this is the Energy Choice Act superseding Lawrence's renewable energy plan.

The City of Lawrence, Kansas, had set ambitious goals to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy, with targeted timelines for different sectors. By 2025, the city aimed to achieve 100% renewable energy for electricity in municipal operations, followed by all energy sectors in municipal operations by 2035. The city also planned to extend these goals community-wide, with 100% renewable electricity by 2035 and all energy sectors by 2050. To achieve these targets, Lawrence had already begun implementing solar energy projects, such as installing solar panels on a fire station and the train station, as well as exploring ways to retrofit existing infrastructure to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

However, on April 9, 2021, the Kansas State Legislature passed the Energy Choice Act, which preempted parts of Lawrence's renewable energy transition plan. The Act was introduced by Congressman Nick Langworthy and aimed to "end Blue-State wars on American energy." The legislation allows for market competition and prevents state and local governments from favouring specific energy sources. It gives American households the freedom to choose their heating solutions based on their needs, local climates, and budgets. The Act also enables renewable liquid heating fuels to compete and contribute to emissions reductions.

The Energy Choice Act, therefore, supersedes Lawrence's renewable energy plan by removing the city's authority to prohibit certain energy sources and infrastructure. While Lawrence's plan aimed for a complete transition to renewable energy, the Act prioritises consumer choice and market competition, potentially slowing down or altering the city's original transition plan. This example illustrates how the principle of preemption can impact a city's ability to enforce its policies when they conflict with state or federal laws.

California's Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is a California state law that exempts certain types of residential rental units from rent control ordinances. It prohibits local governments from regulating "vacancy control" in most cases and exempts single-family dwellings, condos, and new constructions from rent control.

The Act was passed in 1995 to address the growing discontent of landlords with the imposition of local rent control laws in cities across California. At the time, there were "'moderate" and "strict" rent control ordinances in place, which restricted rent increases on occupied units and set rental rates for vacant units, respectively. The Costa-Hawkins Act limits the power of California cities to regulate their rental markets and prohibits rent control on housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and on housing units with separate titles, such as condominiums and townhouses.

The Act also allows landlords to reset the rental rate on rent-controlled units when they become vacant or when the last rent-controlled tenant no longer permanently resides there, including when they move out and leave behind subtenants. Additionally, it addresses subtenancies and other issues related to rent control.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is found in the California Civil Code, sections 1954.50 to 1954.535. It is important to note that while Costa-Hawkins provides guidance on rent control in California, it is the local governments and cities that write and adopt the specific rent control laws. These laws are usually aimed at mitigating the disruptive effects of fluctuating prices in the residential rental market and promoting the maintenance of safe and habitable dwelling units during housing shortages.

Frequently asked questions