logo
Bill criminalizing votes for immigrant sanctuary policies ‘constitutionally suspect'

Bill criminalizing votes for immigrant sanctuary policies ‘constitutionally suspect'

Yahoo29-01-2025
Immigrant families and activists rally outside the Tennessee State Capitol in 2018, protesting a law to prohibit sanctuary cities.(Photo by)
As Gov. Bill Lee's immigration enforcement plan moves swiftly through the Tennessee Legislature, one component of the bill — aimed at arresting local officials who support sanctuary policies for immigrants — drew scrutiny Tuesday.
Included in the governor's wide-ranging proposal to coordinate with the Trump Administration on mass immigrant detentions and deportations is a provision that creates a Class E felony for public officials who vote to adopt or enact sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies can shield undocumented immigrants and limit cooperation with enforcement action
The felony charge, punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine, would apply to any public official who votes in favor of a sanctuary law, policy or on non-binding resolutions.
Sen. Todd Gardenhire, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the provision Tuesday as a 'dangerous precedent.'
'We are a Republic, and a Republic is one that we elect people to vote the way they feel like is best for the district, the city, county or the state,' he said.
'If we set the precedent of penalizing any elected official for voting their conscience, whether it's good or bad, then we set a dangerous precedent for the future,' he said.
Under Trump, immigration arrests at school could be a step too far for some Tennessee conservatives
Democrats characterized the provision as a 'slippery slope' that could be invoked in future legislation to criminalize votes on any controversial issue.
'It is alarming we are sitting here talking about felonizing elected officials taking votes on behalf of their constituency,' Sen. Heidi Campbell, a Nashville Democrat, said. 'Boy, this is a slippery slope and be careful what you wish for if you vote for this.'
Gardenhire was in the minority among Republicans who dominate the Senate Judiciary Committee. They quickly shot down Gardenhire's efforts to amend the bill to remove criminal penalties before voting to advance it in the legislature.
Sanctuary policies are already prohibited by a 2019 Tennessee law that sought to prevent local governments from adopting sanctuary city status —as some other Democrat-led cities across the country have done.
The 2019 Tennessee law gives citizens the right to file civil suits challenging any jurisdiction's adoption of sanctuary policies and the state the power to withhold funding over violations.
'When the state banned sanctuary cities, its remedies were to deny cities grants and to seek a court order,' said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.
'Here the state is trying to control the actions of duly-elected officials through the police power,' he said. 'That's a dramatic escalation.'
One national government accountability expert said he knew of no other state law that threatened to prosecute public officials for how they cast a vote.
I don't know of any other laws, state or federal, that penalize elected officials on the basis of how they vote. This seems to defeat the whole purpose of democratic-republican (representative) government.
– John Vile, Middle Tennessee State University
'It's an unprecedented power grab and criminalization of political discourse,' said Dan Vicuña, director of redistricting and representation for Common Cause, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group.
'It puts at risk the basic right to local representative and democratic government,' he said.
And local legal experts, among them the legislature's own attorney, said the provision may be 'constitutionally suspect.'
'Generally speaking Tennessee courts have found legislative bodies have legislative immunity for acts that serve part of their legislative function and that legislative immunity extends to local legislative bodies,' Elizabeth Insogna, a Legislative attorney, told the committee.
'Be prepared' Nashville leaders caution immigrant communities about looming crackdowns
'It's possible that a criminal provision that is enforced against a member of a legislative body may be constitutionally suspect,' she said. 'It would be up for a court to determine.'
John Vile, professor of political science and Dean of the University Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University said 'legislators should heed Article 1' of the Tennessee Constitution, which establishes a 'Declaration of Rights' for citizens and their elected representatives.
'I don't know of any other laws, state or federal, that penalize elected officials on the basis of how they vote,' he said. 'This seems to defeat the whole purpose of democratic-republican (representative) government.
Republicans however noted the criminal penalties are aimed at elected officials attempting to pass legislation already outlawed in Tennessee.
'I think everybody would agree that's something that elected officials should be prohibited from doing, or should not do,' said Sen. Kerry Roberts, a Springfield Republican. 'The fact there's a consequence for it, I personally don't have a problem with that, because they ought not to be doing it in the first place. It's illegal.'
Only two current laws provide criminal penalties for lawmakers acting in their official capacities, according to Stephen Crump, executive director of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference. One longstanding law allows criminal charges to be brought against county commissioners who fail to adequately fund local jails. Other lawmakers may be charged if their vote violates official misconduct statutes.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump criticizes ‘fake news,' Democrat, Zelensky in series of posts
Trump criticizes ‘fake news,' Democrat, Zelensky in series of posts

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Trump criticizes ‘fake news,' Democrat, Zelensky in series of posts

President Trump late Sunday in a pair of posts on Truth Social ripped the media and a prominent Democrat for criticisms of his summit on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump met with Putin in Alaska, and will meet Monday with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as he seeks to find a way to end the more than three-year war between those two countries. Media criticism of the summit has focused on the lack of clear accomplishments from the meeting, and Trump's decision to literally roll out a red carpet for the Russian leader. 'The Fake News has been saying for 3 days that I suffered a 'major defeat' by allowing President Vladimir Putin of Russia to have a major Summit in the United States,' Trump wrote. 'Actually, he would have loved doing the meeting anywhere else but the U.S., and the Fake News knows this. It was a major point of contention! If we had the Summit elsewhere, the Democrat run and controlled media would have said what a terrible thing THAT was. These people are sick!' Trump then criticized Democrats and the media for wanting crime in D.C., an apparent reference to his decision to federalize the local police force and call in the National Guard to the nation's capital. Trump then turned to criticism of Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who earlier on Sunday had described Trump's decision to federalize D.C. police as a 'stunt.' 'The very unattractive (both inside and out!) Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, said 'Putin got everything that he wanted.' Actually, 'nobody got anything,' too soon, but getting close. 'Murphy is a lightweight who thinks it made the Russian President look good in coming to America. Actually, it was very hard for President Putin to do so. This war can be ended, NOW, but stupid people like Chris Murphy, John Bolton, and others, make it much harder to do so,' Trump wrote, referencing his former national security adviser. Murphy on Sunday said Trump called in the National Guard to Washington, D.C., and federalized the police because he 'didn't like the fact that the walls were closing in on him, that his own base was questioning why he wouldn't release the Epstein files, why he was protecting very powerful people.' Murphy made those remarks in an interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on 'Meet the Press.' Murphy had also criticized the summit, saying Trump was effectively elevating Putin on the global stage. Trump in a third post also criticized Zelensky, again suggesting that ending the war with Russia was all on his shoulders. 'President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,' Trump wrote. He blamed former President Obama for Russia having taken over Crime in 2014, and appeared to blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 on Ukraine's discussions about entering NATO. Russia unilaterally invaded Ukraine in 2022, after previously taking over Crimea, recognized as part of Ukraine, in 2014.

Newsom lashes out at universities for agreeing to 'sell their soul' to Trump for federal funding
Newsom lashes out at universities for agreeing to 'sell their soul' to Trump for federal funding

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

Newsom lashes out at universities for agreeing to 'sell their soul' to Trump for federal funding

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., accused major universities such as Columbia and Brown of "selling their souls" to the Trump administration after agreeing to multimillion-dollar settlements. Several universities had federal research grants cut or frozen either for failing to address antisemitism or for promoting so-called "woke" policies, according to the administration. Though some schools have agreed to pay large settlements to restore funding and close additional investigations, Newsom reiterated that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) will not follow suit. "UCLA is not going to sell their soul like Harvard or Brown or Penn or Columbia," Newsom said on "Pod Save America" Thursday. "Shame on all of them. We're not. And we're going to fight like hell to protect our democracy, our liberties, our freedoms. I love Republicans. I love Democrats. I don't care what your party affiliation is. I honestly don't. I care about this country and our democracy. I care about the rule of law." He called out Harvard over reports suggesting the university was close to reaching a $500 million settlement to regain access to more than $2.6 billion in federal funding. "And let me make this crystal clear to everyone watching and make it crystal clear to the folks at Harvard," Newsom said. "We will never ever sell our soul to Donald Trump. Harvard, I pray you are listening. How could you? Of all institutions, on tens of billions of dollars, what's the point of your damn endowment if you cannot stand on principle?" While speaking in San Francisco earlier this month, Newsom made a similar declaration, insisting that UCLA would not pay a settlement under his watch. "We're not Brown, we're not Columbia, and I'm not going to be governor if we act like that," Newsom said. "Period. Full stop, I will fight like hell to make sure that doesn't happen." The Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion settlement from UCLA, along with the creation of a $172 million claims fund for alleged Title VII violations under the Civil Rights Act. UCLA has already paid $6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Jewish students and faculty members over the school's handling of anti-Israel protests, including its failure to stop protesters from setting up what Jewish students and faculty described as a "Jew Exclusion Zone" on campus.

Newsom demands information from Trump after Border Patrol appearance outside his news conference
Newsom demands information from Trump after Border Patrol appearance outside his news conference

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Newsom demands information from Trump after Border Patrol appearance outside his news conference

Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a request Sunday seeking records from the Trump administration to explain why a phalanx of Border Patrol agents showed up outside a news conference held by leading California Democrats last week. Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security asking for "all documents and records" related to the Aug. 14 Border Patrol operation in downtown Los Angeles, which took place outside the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. At the news conference, Newsom announced a campaign to seek voter approval to redraw California's congressional maps to boost Democrats' chances of retaking the House and stymieing Trump's agenda in the 2026 midterm elections. "Trump's use of the military and federal law enforcement to try to intimidate his political opponents is yet another dangerous step towards authoritarianism," Newsom posted Sunday on X. "This is an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea." Newsom announced at the press event the 'Election Rigging Response Act" — which would scrap independently drawn congressional maps in favor of those sketched by Democratic strategists in an attempt to counter moves by Republicans in Texas and other GOP-led states to gerrymander their own districts to favor Republicans in the 2026 midterms. Meanwhile, dozens of armed federal agents massed in the adjacent streets wearing masks, helmets and camouflage. Newsom and other leading Democrats, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, dismissed the Border Patrol action as an intimidation tactic. In response to questions from The Times on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the agents were "focused on enforcing the law, not on [Newsom]." McLaughlin said two people were arrested during the Little Tokyo operation. One was a drug trafficker, according to McLaughlin, who said the other was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that has been a focus of the Trump administration's efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportation efforts. She did not respond to questions about how many agents were deployed or what specific agencies were involved in the Aug. 14 operation. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who has been leading the Trump administration's aggressive immigration operations in California, was at the scene and briefly spoke to reporters. McLaughlin did not name either person arrested or respond to a request for further information or evidence of links between the arrests and the Venezuelan gang. "Under President Trump and [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary [Kristi] Noem, if you break the law, you will face the consequences," she wrote in an e-mailed statement. "Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.' On Thursday, witnesses at the scene identified one of the men arrested as Angel, a delivery worker who was carrying strawberries when he was captured. 'He was just doing his normal delivery to the courthouse,' said the man's colleague, Carlos Franco. 'It's pretty sad, because I've got to go to work tomorrow, and Angel isn't going to be there.' In the FOIA request, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, called the Border Patrol deployment an "attempt to intimidate the people of California from defending a fair electoral process." In addition to documents related to the planning of the raid, the FOIA request also seeks "any records referencing Governor Newsom or the rally that was scheduled to occur" and communications between federal law enforcement officials and Fox News, which allowed the Trump-friendly media outlet to embed a reporter with Border Patrol that day. Trump's increased use of the military and federal law enforcement against his political rivals has drawn growing concern in recent months. The president deployed the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles earlier this year. Just last week, Trump sent swarms of federal law enforcement officials to Washington, D.C., to combat what he sees as out-of-control crime, despite the fact that most crime statistics show violence in the nation's capital is at a 30-year low. Although Newsom demanded an answer by early September, the federal government is notoriously slow in responding to FOIA requests and will often delay responses for years. A spokesman for Newsom did not immediately respond to questions on Sunday about what, if any, other legal steps the governor was prepared to take. Voters would have to approve Newsom's plan to redraw the congressional maps in a special election in November. The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors instead of the independent commission that voters previously chose, would concentrate Republican voters in a few deep-red pockets of the state and eliminate an Inland Empire district long held by the GOP. In total, Democrats would likely pick up five seats in California in the midterms under the redrawn maps, possibly countering or outpacing Republican efforts to tilt their map red in Texas. Other states have already begun to consider redrawing their maps along more partisan lines in response to growing anxieties over the fight to control the House of Representatives in 2026. Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store