The incoming administration's plans to use withhholding of federal funds to pressure sanctuary cities are reminiscent of ones that werre invalidated by courts during Trump's first administration.
The court indicates the law would be constitutional so long as it does not claim to declare a federal law "invalid."
I cover both liberal immigration sanctuaries and conservative gun sanctuaries, and the more general principles behind them.
Sometimes he calls for freedom, and sometimes he preaches something darker.
The country needs a political truce with devolved power.
Like the Sixth Circuit before it, the Eleventh ruled that the requirement that states receiving stimulus money refrain from cutting taxes was never clearly authorized by Congress.
GOP governors' ploy highlights the value of giving states the power to issue their own migration visas. It can simultaneously ease labor shortages, reduce disorder at the border, enable more migrants to escape poverty and oppression, and help restore the original meaning of the Constitution.
Political scientist David Leal explains why conservatives should reject efforts to compel states and localities to help enforce federal laws these jurisdictions oppose.
Perhaps, as we relearn the virtues of local decision-making, we'll also reacquire a taste for individualism.
The suit deserves to fail for much the same reasons as Trump-era attacks on immigration sanctuaries.
The anti-commandeering principle serves causes favored by both the right and the left.
Conservative states seeking to protect gun rights are copying the tactics used by liberal immigration sanctuaries.
Participants include Prof. Edward Rubin (Vanderbilt), Prof. Carolyn Shapiro (Chicago-Kent), Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute), and myself.
Montana's new law refusing to help enforce federal gun restrictions is similar to liberal "sanctuary cities'" refusal to assist in federal immigration enforcement. Both are protected by Constitution.
Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.
In both situations, the grant conditions in question were not clearly and unambiguously authorized by Congress.
Conservative judges have stymied Trump in his election challenges - and many other cases where his positions went against their legal principles. But a populist/nationalist GOP could gradually change the nature of conservative jurisprudence.
The much-publicized result is ocnsistent with previous studies on the impact of sanctuary city
For the moment, the executive "memorandum" is long on rhetoric, but short on actual action. If it ever does lead to action, it could be yet another attack on federalism and separation of powers.
Adam Thierer, author of the lead essay, has a response to his critics.
Thanks to him, there will be no escaping accusations by the left that states' rights are merely a ruse to protect white power.
The ruling is at odds with decisions by four other circuits and could be headed to the Supreme Court - unless Biden wins the election and reverses administration policy.
The ruling is yet another setback for the administration, though legal battles over sanctuary jurisdictions will continue.
The latest in a long series of setbacks to the adminstration's efforts to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions by attaching conditions to federal grants.
The ruling is in line with numerous other court decisions on the same subject, but conflicts with an anomalous recent ruling by the Second Circuit.
Apparently, conservatives believe in states' rights, except when they don't.
The decision allows the Justice Department to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal grants to state governments, and goes against numerous other court decisions striking down the exact same policy.
The new lawsuits against the state of New Jersey and King County, Washington have many of the same constitutional flaws as the administration's other efforts to to target sanctuary cities.
Rural communities continue to resist their legislatures’ attempts to enact gun control by declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
The constitutional showdown over federalism and immigration approaches SCOTUS.
The latest in a long line of court decisions ruling against Trump's efforts to pressure sanctuary cities into helping deport undocumented immigrants features an opinion by two conservative Republican judicial appointees.
Prof. Brian Frye of the University of Kentucky Law School interviewed me on this subject, as part of his series of "Ipse Dixit" podcasts.
California has largely prevailed in the lower courts, and the administration's petition focuses on the part of the law with the strongest backing from Supreme Court federalism precedent. It's a case the administration deserves to lose.
"All over the world they're talking about Chicago," Trump said at a law enforcement conference today. "Afghanistan is a safe place by comparison."
In this follow-up to my Washington Post article on the same subject, I consider whether current liberal support for federalism is purely opportunistic, and whether the political left is inherently pro-centralization.
The ruling comes after a long string of losses blocking other administration efforts to deny federal law enforcement funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. The different result in this case is largely a product of the unusual nature of the program involved.
In recent years, many liberals have come to develop a new appreciation for constitutional limits on federal power. Whether the trend continues remains to be seen.
What happens when cities and counties have their own ideas about a law that authorizes the seizure of guns from people who are mentally ill?
They should offer to pay for the transportation of asylum seekers.
Federal judges rule state cannot be forced to assist immigration officials.
The ruling, written by a Republican-appointed judge, is an important victory for federalism.
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
The administration continues to try to impose grant conditions on state and local governments that were never authorized by by Congress. In two new decision, courts continue to rule against them.
In a case brought by the City of Philadelphia, the court struck down a Justice Department policy conditioning federal law enforcement grants on assisting federal immigration enforcement policy.
The event features Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and myself.
The suspect's previous DUI arrests didn't even put him on ICE's radar.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of setbacks for the administration's efforts to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by withholding federal law enforcement grants.
(You don't really have to shut up, but here's my money.)
Yes, I'll donate to Reason right now! I'll keep my money today, thanksReason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksHelp Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksReason is the antidote to the same old stale take on ideas that actually matter to me.
I’ll support Free Minds and Free Markets! Not interestedReason pushes me to think critically with facts and analysis that shape my perspective and amplify the ideas I care about.
I want to make a donation so that my voice can be heard! Not todayEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedIt’s hard to trust the media these days, especially when everyone is pushing a partisan agenda. Reason stands for my right to make my own choices.
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No, I’ll follow the partisan herdReason’s fearless, principled journalism keeps me sane in a crazy world.
Making a donation to Reason right now will keep me from losing my mind! No, I like being madSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksSupport the voices that advocate for your freedom. Donate to Reason today!
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today