Who Enforces Federal Criminal Law? States' Authority Explored

The enforcement of federal criminal law by state authorities is a complex issue that has been addressed in various court cases and legislation. While the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that state courts can hear cases arising under federal law, but the enforcement of federal law by state authorities is subject to certain conditions and limitations. For example, in the context of immigration law, state and local officers may exercise arrest powers of federal immigration officers under specific circumstances, such as when authorized by the U.S. attorney general or in emergency situations. The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to the anti-commandeering doctrine, and the ability of states to enforce federal criminal law varies depending on the specific circumstances and the applicable legislation.

State police arresting people for breaking federal law

In the United States, the question of whether state or local police can arrest people for breaking federal law has been a subject of debate and discussion. While the power to regulate immigration is exclusively held by the federal government, the enforcement of federal law by state and local police officers is a complex issue.

State and local police officers have the authority to arrest individuals for any offense within their jurisdiction, including misdemeanors and felonies. In Connecticut, for instance, state and local police are authorized to arrest individuals for violations of federal criminal law. However, the legality of an arrest for a specific federal crime depends on whether federal law explicitly or implicitly permits such an arrest. The Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution grants Congress the power to prohibit a state from enforcing a federal law.

In certain circumstances, state and local officers may exercise the civil or criminal arrest powers of federal immigration officers. This can occur when they are expressly authorized by the U.S. attorney general, given consent by the head of the state or local law enforcement agency, or in emergency situations involving a mass influx of aliens. Additionally, federal immigration law may authorize state and local police officers to enforce certain provisions of immigration law, including civil provisions, under specific conditions.

The interpretation and application of these laws can vary across states. For example, in New York, the state statute removed jurisdiction over both state and federal claims, while the federal policy under Section 1983 aims to make relief broadly available. Furthermore, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law, but federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts.

While state police can generally enforce federal law within their jurisdiction, the enforcement of specific federal statutes, such as immigration law, may require authorization from the state or cooperation with federal authorities. The interplay between state and federal laws and the involvement of various law enforcement agencies adds complexity to the issue of state police arresting individuals for breaking federal law.

Federal immigration law

The federal government has enacted and amended the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) to implement its exclusive power over immigration. The INA establishes rules for legal immigration and naturalization, and a system for processing and deporting illegal immigrants. It also specifies civil and criminal penalties for violations. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is a national immigration bureaucracy created by Congress to enforce the INA.

State laws have a role in immigration enforcement, and some states have passed laws to bolster the enforcement of federal immigration laws. For example, Connecticut law authorizes state and local police to arrest people for violations of federal criminal law, including immigration law. However, whether an arrest can be made depends on whether federal law allows it for that specific crime. The power to prohibit a state from enforcing a federal law rests with the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution.

The federal courts have repeatedly held that the power to regulate immigration is exclusively federal. However, there is a question of whether state courts can enforce federal law, which is related to the anti-commandeering doctrine. In the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the states, and that the United States is a "paramount sovereignty".

State court enforcement of federal law

In the United States, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and other federal courts. However, this does not imply that state courts are exempt from enforcing federal laws.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the precedent of making the jurisdiction of federal courts concurrent with that of state courts. Early Congresses imposed a duty on state courts to enforce federal laws. For example, the Carriage Tax Act (1794), the License Tax on Wine & Spirits Act (1794), the Fugitive Slave Act (1794), the Naturalization Act of 1795, and the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, all mandated state courts to enforce federal laws.

In the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the several States, and that the United States is a concurrent and paramount sovereignty within its jurisdiction. The Court further held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction when they are competent to take it by their own constitution.

In the case of Howlett v. Rose, the Court summarised cases where states had validly declined to hear federal claims, citing "neutral rules of judicial administration" as the reason. In Mondou v. New York, a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, citing that it was "at liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights".

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. For example, in New York, a statute removed jurisdiction over both state and federal claims, and the Court held that "equality of treatment" between state and federal claims did not ensure that a state law would be a valid excuse for refusing to entertain a federal cause of action.

State and local police officers' authority to enforce federal law is less clear. In some cases, state and local officers may exercise the civil or criminal arrest powers of federal immigration officers when expressly authorised by the U.S. attorney general or in emergency situations. However, it is unclear if they can enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law outside of these circumstances.

State court jurisdiction to hear federal claims

In the United States, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. However, this does not mean that they are to be treated as federal courts for the purpose of enforcing the right. In other words, state courts can hear cases arising under federal law, but they are not obligated to do so in every instance.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter in several cases. For example, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. At the time, federal law did not grant exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts as it does now. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the states and their citizens, and that the United States is a concurrent and paramount sovereignty within its jurisdiction.

In another case, Howlett v. Rose, the Court summarised instances where states had validly declined to hear federal claims, citing "neutral rules of judicial administration" as a valid reason for doing so. For example, in Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law, citing its liberty to decline cognizance of actions to enforce rights arising under the federal act.

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. Additionally, state and local police officers' authority to enforce federal law is dependent on the specific circumstances and the applicable federal and state laws. For example, state and local officers may exercise the arrest powers of federal immigration officers under certain conditions, such as when expressly authorised by the U.S. attorney general or in emergency situations involving a mass influx of aliens.

Congress' power to prohibit state enforcement of federal law

The power of Congress to prohibit state enforcement of federal law has been a matter of significant legal debate, particularly in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." This amendment, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, was adopted during the Reconstruction period to abolish slavery and protect the rights of newly emancipated African-Americans. The enforcement provisions within these amendments extended the powers of Congress and reduced those of the individual states.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as not authorizing Congress to regulate private conduct, but only the actions of state and local governments. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Court ruled that Congress lacked the power under this amendment to forbid discrimination not sponsored by the state. This decision has been upheld, although modern civil rights legislation has been supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

The power of Congress to prohibit state enforcement of federal law is also derived from the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution, which establishes the "laws of the United States" as paramount to state laws. This clause allows Congress to prevent or remedy violations of rights already recognized by the courts, ensuring that state laws do not conflict with constitutional amendments.

However, the Supreme Court has not always interpreted Congress's power to prohibit state enforcement of federal law consistently. For example, in United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court held that Congress did not have the authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the Violence Against Women Act, reaffirming that the amendment only restricts state action. Similarly, in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Court ruled that Congress exceeded its power by mandating that states lower the voting age to 18, leading to the adoption of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions