Minnesota and the two Twin Cities are among the jurisdictions that have “sanctuary policies” restricting state and local law enforcement assistance to federal immigration enforcement operations. Sanctuary jurisdictions have, for good reason, concluded that their law enforcement resources are better used to combat violent and property crime, rather than helping deport undocumented immigrants. As Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey puts it, “The job of our police is to keep people safe, not enforce fed immigration laws. I want them preventing homicides, not hunting down a working dad who contributes to [Minneapolis] & is from Ecuador.” The latter actually have much lower crime rates than native-born citizens, and many of those the administration seeks to deport have no criminal records at all. Local and state participation in deportation efforts also makes it more difficult to combat crime by poisoning relations between law enforcement agencies and minority communities.
Part of the purpose of the federal “surge” is to coerce Minnesota jurisdictions into giving up their sanctuary policies and using their resources to assist federal deportation efforts. As federal District Judge Katherine Menendez noted in a hearing in the case on Jan. 26, Trump administration officials have repeatedly indicated that this is one of their objectives. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested as much in a Jan. 24 letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. A Jan. 16 White House statement explicitly indicates that Minnesota’s “sanctuary defiance” is “responsibl[e] for the enhanced enforcement operations in Minnesota.” A recent statement by Trump “border czar” Tom Homan indicates that the administration will not withdraw immigration enforcement officers from Minnesota unless state and local governments curb sanctuary policies and extend “cooperation” to federal immigration enforcers.
...
In its legal filing responding to the lawsuit, the Justice Department claims the administration is not trying to coerce Minnesota state and local governments, but merely enforcing the law. But this claim is refuted by administration officials’ numerous statements to the contrary. And if the administration were truly focused on law enforcement, its agents would not be constantly breaking the law themselves. Moreover, there is no other plausible justification for such a massive federal deployment in a state where the percentage of illegal migrants is only about half the national average.
If allowed to stand by the courts, the federal action in Minnesota would set an extremely dangerous precedent. It could easily be used against a variety of state policies, including those of conservative “gun sanctuaries”—such as Montana and Missouri—which restrict state and local assistance efforts to enforce federal gun control laws. A future Democratic administration could send thousands of armed agents to harass gun owners and disrupt state and local government operations until gun sanctuary jurisdictions drop their restrictions.
Indeed, the Minnesota operation has already threatened gun rights traditionally prized by conservatives. Administration officials have defended the killing of Alex Pretti on the grounds that he was carrying a gun at the time—even though he had a legal permit to do so, never drew the weapon, and federal agents took it from him before they shot him.
....
Many liberals have traditionally been wary of enforcing constitutional constraints on federal power, given that “states’ rights” arguments were used to defend slavery and segregation. But there is a fundamental difference between situations where state governments are themselves violating constitutional rights—as with state-imposed racial segregation—and cases where they merely refuse to help the federal government enforce federal law against private parties. Moreover, the political world has changed since the civil rights era. Today, state governments often help protect minorities against federal oppression, rather than vice versa. The sanctuary city movement dramatically illustrates this dynamic, as these jurisdictions protect vulnerable migrants and minorities subject to racial profiling by immigration enforcers. These are among the reasons why “blue” jurisdictions effectively used federalism litigation to curb federal abuses of power during the first Trump administration. Minnesota and others are right to continue doing so now.
The Constitution can help protect us against oppression by both state and federal authorities. The 10th Amendment is a valuable tool for countering the latter.
