Sheriff's Jurisdiction: Federal Law Enforcement Boundaries

A sheriff is typically an elected official who serves to keep the peace and enforce criminal laws within a county. They have the power to make arrests and detain people, which often sees them playing a role in immigration enforcement. While sheriffs are expected to enforce federal laws, there have been instances of sheriffs refusing to do so, particularly in the case of gun safety laws and immigration laws. In such cases, sheriffs can be sued and held financially responsible for any harm caused by their refusal to enforce the law.

Can a local sheriff enforce federal law?

Sheriffs can refuse to enforce federal gun laws

In the United States, a sheriff is typically an elected official who serves to keep the peace and enforce criminal laws within a county. While they are responsible for enforcing laws, they do not create them. In recent years, there have been instances of sheriffs refusing to enforce certain federal laws, particularly those related to gun control.

Sheriffs in multiple states have publicly announced that they will not enforce newly enacted gun safety laws, such as background checks and restrictions on assault weapons. They argue that these laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, legal experts and scholars disagree with this interpretation and assert that county sheriffs cannot override federal authority.

The refusal to enforce gun laws by sheriffs has raised concerns about public safety and the rule of law. Sheriffs who selectively enforce laws based on their personal beliefs are accused of violating their oaths, shirking their duties, and trampling on the democratic process. Additionally, they may face legal consequences for their non-compliance. Citizens can seek a writ of mandamus, a court order directing a government official to carry out their legal obligations. Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun regulations may also be sued and held financially responsible if their inaction leads to harm caused by firearms.

While sheriffs have some discretion in how they enforce laws, their refusal to uphold duly enacted state and federal laws undermines the democratic process and the separation of powers. The power to decide which laws to enforce or disregard should not rest with law enforcement officers, and they should instead work within the legal system to address their concerns.

Sheriffs can choose to enforce state laws over federal laws

In the United States, a sheriff is typically an elected official who serves to keep the peace and enforce criminal laws within a county. They have the power to make arrests and detain people, which often sees them play a role in immigration enforcement.

While sheriffs are sworn to uphold the law, there are instances where they can choose to enforce state laws over federal laws. For example, in the case of legalised medical or recreational marijuana in certain states, sheriffs do not face legal difficulties by abiding by state laws instead of federal laws, which state that marijuana is illegal.

In some cases, sheriffs have refused to enforce certain state laws, claiming that they violate the US Constitution. For instance, some county sheriffs have publicly announced that they will not enforce new gun safety laws, such as background checks and the surrender of firearms by those convicted of domestic violence, as they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment. Similarly, in 2013, 500 sheriffs agreed not to enforce any gun laws created by the federal government, and almost all elected sheriffs in Utah signed an agreement to protect the Bill of Rights and resist any federal officials who tried to limit them.

However, sheriffs who refuse to enforce duly enacted state laws are violating their oaths, shirking their duties, and contravening the democratic process and the separation of powers. Citizens and lawyers can take legal action against defiant sheriffs, such as through a writ of mandamus, which allows citizens to obtain a court order directing a government official to carry out their legal obligations.

Sheriffs can refuse to enforce federal immigration laws

While federal laws state that marijuana is illegal, many states have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana. As a result, sheriffs can choose to abide by state laws without facing legal consequences for not enforcing federal laws. Sheriffs have a lot of control over how the law is enforced, and this power can be misused.

In the context of immigration laws, sheriffs can refuse to enforce federal immigration laws, and this is often seen in so-called "sanctuary cities". Sanctuary policies are not clearly defined, but they generally involve local officials instructing law enforcement officers not to enter into contracts with federal authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. These policies aim to separate the duties of state and local governments from those of the federal government, as envisioned by the federal constitution.

However, sheriffs who refuse to enforce duly enacted state laws are violating their oaths, shirking their responsibilities, and undermining the democratic process and the separation of powers. Duly enacted laws are presumed to be constitutional, and executive officials are obligated to enforce them unless they are repealed or struck down by a court.

The Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is solely the responsibility of the federal government. State and local police may only carry out immigration enforcement if specifically authorized by the federal government. Compliance with immigration detainers is voluntary, and the federal government cannot compel states or localities to participate in immigration enforcement, as per the Tenth Amendment.

Some sheriffs, like Bob Songer of Klickitat County, Washington, have chosen to support federal immigration enforcement. Songer believes Washington's sanctuary law is unconstitutional and feels he is answering the demands of his constituents. He has pledged to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite being at odds with other law enforcement authorities and the state's governor.

Sheriffs can be sued for refusing to enforce federal laws

While sheriffs have a lot of control over how the law is enforced, they are not exempt from the law. Sheriffs who refuse to enforce duly enacted state laws are violating their oaths, shirking their duties, and trampling on the democratic process. Executive officials, including sheriffs, are obligated to enforce duly enacted laws unless and until they are repealed or a court strikes them down.

In the United States, sheriffs take an oath upon entering office to perform a variety of actions, such as keeping the peace, enforcing state laws, and/or defending their state's constitution. While not every sheriff shares the same responsibilities, their central function is in the enforcement of state and local laws.

Some sheriffs who are elected to office argue that they have a separate electoral mandate to consider constituents' views and make independent determinations as to whether a law violates the state or federal constitution. If so, they may refuse to enforce it until a court declares otherwise. However, this is not a legitimate argument and would be a step on the path towards lawlessness. Sheriffs are charged with enforcing the laws, not deciding for themselves whether they are constitutional.

The judicial system has remedies for lawless and defiant government officials. One is called a writ of mandamus, which allows citizens to go to court and get an order directing a government official to carry out non-discretionary legal obligations imposed by law. Sheriffs who publicly declare that they refuse to enforce new gun regulations should expect to be sued if that's what's needed to get them to follow the law. In addition, sheriffs who refuse to carry out safety measures, such as conducting a background check on the purchase of an assault weapon, also face the risk of being sued and held financially responsible if that person then uses the firearm to kill or injure.

Sheriffs can use federal law to evade local reform efforts

In the United States, a sheriff is typically an elected official who serves to keep the peace and enforce criminal laws within a county. While they are charged with enforcing the laws, some sheriffs have refused to follow certain laws, claiming that they have the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional and should be enforced. This has led to concerns about the evasion of local reform efforts and the creation of a lawless society.

One example of sheriffs evading local reform efforts is through the use of federal asset forfeiture laws. Ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama-era rule that prevented state and local law enforcement from using federal asset forfeiture laws to evade local reform efforts. As a result, sheriffs are now free to use asset forfeiture by citing federal law even if local rules prohibit the practice. Forfeiture funds are often at the disposal of sheriffs and other officials, which can lead to abuses and corruption.

In some states, sheriffs have publicly announced that they will not enforce newly enacted gun safety laws, claiming that they believe these laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, courts have repeatedly upheld these laws against constitutional challenges, finding that they do not violate the Second Amendment. By refusing to enforce these laws, sheriffs are overstepping their role in the constitutional system and undermining the rule of law.

Additionally, some sheriffs have refused to enforce federal immigration laws, claiming that they are following the lead of so-called sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities involve local officials instructing their law enforcement officers not to enter into contracts with the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws. While this may seem similar to sheriffs refusing to enforce federal laws, it is important to note that sheriffs who refuse to enforce duly enacted state laws are violating their oaths, shirking their duties, and contravening the separation of powers.

While sheriffs have a degree of discretion in how they enforce the law, their refusal to enforce certain laws can have significant consequences. In some cases, sheriffs who refuse to carry out public safety measures may face legal consequences, including being sued and held financially responsible if their actions result in harm or injury.

Frequently asked questions