Nevada challenges California’s sanctuary cities

This past summer Nevada joined with other states in challenging a California federal judge’s decision to block President Trump’s executive order that would deny some federal funding for sanctuary cities, saying that such cities near Nevada pose a threat to public safety.

The judge sided with Santa Clara County, the city of San Francisco and other jurisdictions who argued that taking away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.

With the case now going to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has again joined with other attorneys general to file a friend-of-the-court brief.

“It is common sense that dangerous felons should not be released into neighborhoods, and that law enforcement must work together for public safety,” Laxalt was quoted as saying in a press release announcing the filing. “Sanctuary cities in California pose a danger to neighboring states like Nevada by making it easier for those not lawfully in this country and with violent criminal histories to evade law enforcement and travel out of state. What’s more, these cities undermine the rule of law and prevent cooperation between federal and local officials.”

The filing points out that one of the states seeking to overturn the judge’s ruling, West Virginia, is near Baltimore, which has adopted sanctuary city policies and is the source of illegal drugs that spill into West Virginia. “Sanctuary policies deprive jurisdictions of important tools that could assist with preventing such out-of-state drug trafficking,” the brief argues.

Days after taking office President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to deny certain federal funding to cities and jurisdictions that “willfully refuse” to comply with federal immigration laws, but a federal judge blocked the order.

The current brief states, “Sanctuary jurisdictions can cause harm to neighboring States by making it easier for people who are not lawfully in this country and have committed civil or criminal offenses to evade law enforcement and travel out-of-state.”

The brief also counters the argument that denying federal funds for failing to voluntarily cooperate in immigration law enforcement is unconstitutional by pointing out the case of South Dakota v. Dole. In that case the Supreme Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to withhold federal funds from states that failed to raise the legal drinking age to 21.

The brief also notes this issue is not just an executive order by the president but is merely an instruction to enforce the law as passed by Congress.

“The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering States by forcing them to administer a federal regulatory regime or conscripting state officers to do the same,” the brief explains. “But that is not what Congress did. Rather, the Order provides States with voluntary inducements to comply with federal law. And for its part, the Act simply displaces or preempts state laws that prohibit localities or local law enforcement officials from voluntarily communicating with federal officials, with a goal to further the comprehensive federal immigration regime. Congress thus acted within its enumerated powers and under the Supremacy Clause to preempt state laws that stand as obstacles to the creation of this uniform policy.”

Laxalt notes that all 17 currently elected county sheriffs have consistently opposed sanctuary-city policies. “Today, in the vast majority of cases, an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail or detention facility before Nevada law enforcement agencies check whether the individual is sought by federal immigration authorities and, if so, alert those federal authorities. Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community,” his press release states.

We appreciate the attorney general sticking up for the rule of law and the safety of Nevadans.   — TM

Sign Up for Email Updates

Get the latest news, alerts, and more from The Ely Times straight to your inbox.

Comments

  1. William Horsley says:

    What is this State of California coming to. And all the states that are following suit. I think the money is a good start to force these cities and states to comply, with not only the law but common sense.
    I personally can’t figure out why this is not a criminal matter. By providing services and welfare to the illegal persons (certainly not immigrants) it seems to me to provide elements of criminal law violations , to wit: “AIDING AND ABETTING”. Wm. Horsley

Speak Your Mind

*

shares