Sanctuary Cities and Law Enforcement
Are Sanctuary Cities Constitutional?
In
Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to enforce federal law.
Therefore, sanctuary cities are constitutional. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement agencies to help deport undocumented immigrants.
That’s the federal government’s job. However, some experts point out that the constitution may not protect cities and counties that refuse to share information with the federal government.
In
Reno v. Condon, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate states sharing people’s personal information.
In the decision, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that the law in question did not violate the principles of federalism because it didn’t “require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.”
So the federal government can’t force local law enforcement agencies to detain undocumented immigrants. But it may be able to require them to share information about immigrants so federal officials can enforce immigration laws.
The LOOPHOLE of the Sanctuary cities is the 4th Amendment. And the LOOPHOLE is the Sanctuary city Ordering the police there NOT to hold illegals there until ICE can get a Warrant and take custody of the prisoner. The Legal eagles of Sanctuary have figured out that they can say that is holding a person without a charged crime.........BECAUSE ICE HASN'T ISSUED A WARRANT YET.
And POOF ........THEY ARE GONE.
