Latest news with #10thamendment
NBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city policies
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by the Trump administration that sought to block the enforcement of several "sanctuary policies" in Illinois that restricted the ability of local officials to aid federal immigration authorities in detainment operations. In a 64-page decision, District Court Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, a Biden appointee, granted a motion by the state of Illinois to dismiss the case after determining the United States lacks standing to sue over the sanctuary policies. The judge noted in the ruling that Illinois' decision to enact the sanctuary laws are protected by the 10th amendment, which declares that any powers not specifically given to the federal government, or denied to the states, by the Constitution, are retained by the states. 'The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the [Immigration and Nationality Act],' the judge wrote. 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects Defendants' Sanctuary Policies, those Policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' The federal judge wrote that granting the administration's request would create an "end-run around the Tenth Amendment." 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker praised the dismissal, which he said will ensure state law enforcement is "not carrying out the Trump administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics." "As state law allows, Illinois will assist the federal government when they follow the law and present warrants to hold violent criminals accountable. But what Illinois will not do is participate in the Trump administration's violations of the law and abuses of power," Pritzker said in a statement. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and Cook County, the home of Chicago, in February for policies it argued infringed on the ability of federal authorities to enforce immigration laws, the first lawsuit by the administration aimed specifically at targeting "sanctuary jurisdictions," a label applied to states, cities, counties or municipalities that establish laws to prevent or limit local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In the 22-page lawsuit, filed days after Attorney General Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate, the Justice Department sought to block state, city and county ordinances that prohibit local law enforcement from assisting the federal government with civil immigration enforcement absent a criminal warrant. Bondi said the policies "obstruct" the federal government. 'The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe,' the lawsuit indicates. The administration has taken similar action to target sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, including a lawsuit this week against New York City, which was described by the Justice Department as 'the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws' in a complaint filed on Thursday. The administration filed a separate lawsuit targeting New York state in February over it's 'Green Light Law,' which enables undocumented immigrants to apply for noncommercial driver's licenses and bars state officials from turning over that data to federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department in June filed a complaint against Los Angeles for immigration policies it argued interfere and discriminate against federal immigration agents by treating them differently from other law enforcement agents in the state. The suit came as Trump administration officials increasingly sparred with California Democratic leaders after immigration detainment efforts in the state led to clashes between protesters and federal authorities, and resulted in the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops. In January, Trump signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions 'do not receive access to federal funds' and to consider pursuing criminal or civil penalties if localities 'interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.' A federal judge in April blocked the effort to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that Trump's order violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles. That judge blocked an earlier effort by Trump in 2017.
Chicago Tribune
4 days ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Trump administration sues New York City over sanctuary city protections for immigrants
The Trump administration has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to end sanctuary city law policies in New York City, arguing that the laws that protect migrants violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Brooklyn Federal Court, cites Sunday's shooting of an off-duty Customs and Border Patrol officer in Fort Washington Park and the arrest of two migrants who were in the country illegally. It contends that the city has 'long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws.' The lawsuit is seeking an injunction to put a stop to city laws that bar the use of resources from being used in immigration enforcement, and blocking city agencies like the Department of Correction and the police from honoring civil immigration detainers placed by federal authorities. The city's sanctuary laws were passed under Mayor de Blasio in 2014. They limit communications and cooperation between federal immigration enforcement agencies and local agencies, including law enforcement. The lawsuit specifically takes aim at an NYPD operations order that prevents officers from engaging in or assisting in civil immigration enforcement. It prevents cops from contacting civil immigration authorities to let them know where an individual is located; detaining an individual so that person can be taken into custody and allowing NYPD facilities to be utilized in connection with civil immigration enforcement. The lawsuit was filed against the city, Mayor Adams and Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, as well as the NYPD and the Department of Correction. It claims local protections are designed to obstruct the lawful enforcement of federal immigration law, and that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that federal law pre-empts any laws passed by New York City. 'We will review the lawsuit,' Adams spokeswoman Kayla Mamelak said. The council did not immediately comment. The lawsuit criticized what it called 'the city's intentional effort to obstruct the United States' enforcement of federal immigration law, by (among much else) impeding the consultation and communication between federal and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for the United States to enforce the law and keep Americans safe.' Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, blasted the administration's efforts. 'Unfortunately, Donald Trump thinks that he and he alone can decide our country's local laws – undermining the 10th amendment,' Awawdeh said. 'Today's lawsuit is frivolous at best, and an attack on New York's ability to govern itself at worst. New York must reject Trump's continued assaults to its Constitutional right to pass local laws that serve our communities best. Mayor Adams must fight back against this federal overreach and defend the well-being of all New Yorkers.' The lawsuit comes after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Monday blamed the mayor and New York's sanctuary city policies for the shooting of the off-duty Customs and Border Patrol agent. 'This officer is in the hospital today, fighting for his life, because of the policies of the mayor of the city and the City Council and the people that were in charge of keeping the public safe refused to do so,' Noem said. 'When I look at what Mayor Adams has done to New York City, it breaks my heart to see the families that have suffered because of his policies.' Noem's comments marked an unusual Trump administration rebuke of Adams, whose criminal indictment was dismissed by Trump's DOJ in what has been criticized as a corrupt deal to aid in the administration's deportation efforts. Though named as the defendant in Trump's lawsuit, Adams himself has been critical of the sweep of the city's sanctuary city protections and has talked about the possibility of using executive orders to dial them back. Mamelak said the lawsuit does not point to any change in the relationship between Adams and the Trump administration. 'Mayor Adams has been clear: no one should be afraid to dial 911, send their kids to school, or go to the hospital, and no New Yorker should feel forced to hide in the shadows,' Mamelak said. 'That's why the mayor supports the essence of the local laws put in place by the City Council — but he has also been clear they go too far when it comes to dealing with those violent criminals on our streets and has urged the Council to reexamine them to ensure we can effectively work with the federal government to make our city safer. So far, the Council has refused.' At a press conference Wednesday, the mayor, asked about sanctuary policies, said he wished he could use his executive authority to override laws he didn't like. 'I wish my EOs can override laws. I'd override a whole lot of laws,' Adams said. 'But executive orders can't override laws. And that's one of the misnomers that's out there, that mayors have the ability to override existing laws. No, the City Council, they pass laws and we sign it into law. But we can't use the power of our pen with executive orders to override the laws.' Adams, through his Deputy Randy Mastro, did issue an executive order earlier this year allowing ICE to operate an office on Rikers Island, but those plans are at a standstill after the Council challenged the move in court. The City Council has pushed back strongly against any changes to the sanctuary laws, which are intended to allow immigrants to make use of the city's resources, send children to school and seek help from law enforcement.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California files lawsuit over Trump's ‘unlawful' deployment of national guard
California on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the US president of 'unlawfully' federalizing the state's national guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Donald Trump's extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an 'unprecedented usurpation' of state powers, according to the court filing. 'The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in violation of the Constitution,' the complaint states. Previewing the suitearlier on Monday, the attorney general, Rob Bonta, said the move 'trampled' the state's sovereignty, overriding objections by the governor, Gavin Newsom, and going 'against the wishes of law enforcement on the ground'. Bonta said the legal action will ask the court to declare Trump's deployment of the guard unlawful and will seek a restraining order to halt the use of its troops to manage the protests. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California national guard troops,' the attorney general said during a virtual news conference on Monday. The announcement came hours before the US military said it was activating a battalion of 700 marines to Los Angeles to protect federal property and personnel. On Monday evening, Newsom said he had been informed that Trump was deploying an additional 2,000 national guard troops to the city. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly did not address specifics of the lawsuit, saying in a statement that California should 'prosecute the anti-Ice rioters' and accusing the governor of being 'more focused on saving face than protecting law enforcement and holding criminals accountable'. 'As the president said, Newsom should thank him for restoring law and order,' Kelly said. Democratic officials have argued that local law enforcement agencies had been adequately managing the protests, which began on Friday in response to a series of immigration enforcement operations across the LA area. 'This was not inevitable,' Bonta said, arguing that the demonstrations had largely dissipated by the time Trump, on Saturday, announced his plans to assert federal control over at least 2,000 national guard troops for at least 60 days, which Bonta said inflamed the situation. On Sunday, roughly 300 California national guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, prompting an outpouring of anger and fear among residents. Trump's call-up order 'skipped over multiple rational, common sense, strategic steps that should have been deployed to quell unrest and prevent escalation', he said. Newsom has accused Trump of intentionally sowing chaos, claiming Trump 'wants a civil war on the streets' and appealing for protesters not to give the administration the spectacle of violence it is hoping to stoke. 'This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 'Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence – this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' On Sunday, Newsom formally requested that Trump rescind his order and return command of the guard to his office. In a letter to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, the governor's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, argued there was 'currently no need' for such intervention by the federal government and that local law enforcement was capable of 'safeguarding public safety'. In the court filing, California alleges that Hegseth acted 'unlawfully' by circumventing the governor when he ordered the national guard into federal service. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from zero to 60,' Bonta said. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.' In a rhetorical back and forth between Newsom and Trump, longtime political foes who clashed repeatedly during Trump's first administration, Trump said he endorsed a threat by his 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest Democratic leaders in California if they impeded law enforcement, including Newsom. 'Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump told reporters on Monday. Related: Los Angeles faces fourth day of protests as Trump deploys 2,000 national guard Newsom responded to the taunt on X, formerly Twitter, calling Trump's support for the arrest of a sitting governor 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'. The Trump administration has said that the immigration protests in Los Angeles amount to a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the United States government. The order does not invoke the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy US soldiers to police streets during times of rebellion or unrest. Instead, it cites a rarely used section of federal law, known as Title 10, that allows the president to federalize national guard units in circumstances where there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. 'There was no risk of rebellion, no threat of foreign invasion, no inability for the federal government to enforce federal laws,' Bonta said. He told reporters his office had studied the Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond should Trump later invoke it as a legal authority to deploy the US military. 'We're prepared for all of it,' he said. The statute has been invoked only once in modern history, Bonta noted, in 1970, when president Richard Nixon mobilized the nationalguard to deliver the mail during a strike by the postal service. The last time a president activated the national guard without a request from the state's governor was in 1965, when president Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. In 1992, George HW Bush sent troops to LA to calm widespread civil unrest following the acquittal of four white police officers for brutally beating Black motorist Rodney King. But in that case both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles requested the federal intervention.
Business Upturn
10-06-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
CORRECTION — Payden & Rygel
LOS ANGELES, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a release issued earlier today by Payden & Rygel, please note we have corrected the proper name of the Payden & Rygel municipal bond team in the headline, as well as the first and second paragraphs. The corrected release follows: Default ahead for California? Unlikely, says New Report From Payden & Rygel's California Municipal Bond Team Recent concerns over California's fiscal health—driven by declining initial public offering (IPO) volume, reduced federal funding risk, and rising costs—have prompted questions about the state's financial stability. However, after a thorough analysis, Payden & Rygel's municipal bond team believes the risk of a bond default or severe credit deterioration remains low. 'While we understand investors' concerns about the California economy, its capacity to generate adequate revenue to match spending levels and the potential impact on the state's municipal debt, we believe that although the revenue picture is softening, the outlook remains relatively stable over the next 1-2 years with potential credit rating deterioration limited to just one notch over that timeframe in a worst case scenario. Near term ratings will hinge on the final FY 26 budget that we expect Sacramento to pass by June 15th, otherwise lawmakers don't get paid,' say the report's authors, the Payden & Rygel's municipal bond team. 'We are also closely monitoring the evolution of entitlement spending reduction proposals at the federal level but ultimately expect Medicaid cuts to be less pervasive than currently feared,' they added. Here are six reasons to be optimistic: Reason 1: Legal structure. The 10th amendment prohibits states, including California, from filing for bankruptcy. While defaults are technically possible, California is nowhere near default based on current indicators. Reason 2: Strong revenues, limited impact from IPO weakness With less than a month in the current fiscal year, tax revenues are weakening but remain strong, with Governor Newsom's recent May Revision projecting a relatively small $12 billion projected for next year. IPO activity, while down, is not a core revenue driver. Its recent decline reflects a normalization post-COVID stimulus, not a structural weakness. Reason 3: Credit ratings are stable All three major credit agencies S&P, Moody's, and Fitch—rate California AA-/Aa2/AA, respectively, all with stable outlooks but we expect the ratings agencies to refine their views this summer following the finalization of the FY 2026 budget process by the end of June. Reason 4: A strong economy with healthy reserves California's gross domestic product (GDP) ranks #4 globally, recently surpassing Japan, underscoring a broad, diverse and innovative state economy with a deep employment base. Although reserves have dipped since 2023 due to pandemic fund drawdowns and budgetary uncertainty in FY 2023/2024 due to delayed tax receipts, they remain at comparatively strong levels historically that will grant state leadership time to navigate federal policy uncertainty, which Governor Newsom blames for a softening of revenue. Reason 5: Manageable liabilities Debt service is low at 3–4% of governmental expenditures, and pension funding remains solid. Because of constitutional protections that prioritize education and debt payments, revenue would need to drop over 50% to threaten debt service. For context, State revenues dropped 15% in 2008. Reason 6: Credit conditions are weakening but remain healthy Despite uncertainty, California retains healthy credit fundamentals with relatively stable ratings, manageable deficits, excellent access to liquidity and conservative budgeting assumptions that support bondholder confidence. In summary, while recent headlines surrounding tariffs, fiscal tightening, and economic uncertainty have contributed to heightened market anxiety, our base case remains firm: Although California's credit profile is softening, it continues to demonstrate resilience, supported by a vast and diversified tax base, substantial reserve levels across all governmental funds, and long-term liabilities that we consider both moderate and manageable. Here is a link to the full report. ABOUT PAYDEN & RYGEL With $165 billion under management, Payden & Rygel is one of the largest privately-owned global investment advisers focused on the active management of fixed income and equity portfolios. Payden & Rygel provides a full range of investment strategies and solutions to investors around the globe, including Central Banks, Pension Funds, Insurance Companies, Private Banks, and Foundations. Independent and privately-owned, Payden is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Boston, London, and Milan. Visit for more information about Payden's investment offerings, including US mutual funds and Irish-domiciled funds (subject to investor eligibility). This material reflects the firm's current opinion and is subject to change without notice. Sources for the material contained herein are deemed reliable but cannot be guaranteed. This material is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell or buy any security. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. For press requests, please contact:Kate Ennis [email protected] 301-580-6726
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CORRECTION -- Payden & Rygel
LOS ANGELES, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In a release issued earlier today by Payden & Rygel, please note we have corrected the proper name of the Payden & Rygel municipal bond team in the headline, as well as the first and second paragraphs. The corrected release follows: Default ahead for California? Unlikely, says New Report From Payden & Rygel's California Municipal Bond TeamRecent concerns over California's fiscal health—driven by declining initial public offering (IPO) volume, reduced federal funding risk, and rising costs—have prompted questions about the state's financial stability. However, after a thorough analysis, Payden & Rygel's municipal bond team believes the risk of a bond default or severe credit deterioration remains low. 'While we understand investors' concerns about the California economy, its capacity to generate adequate revenue to match spending levels and the potential impact on the state's municipal debt, we believe that although the revenue picture is softening, the outlook remains relatively stable over the next 1-2 years with potential credit rating deterioration limited to just one notch over that timeframe in a worst case scenario. Near term ratings will hinge on the final FY 26 budget that we expect Sacramento to pass by June 15th, otherwise lawmakers don't get paid,' say the report's authors, the Payden & Rygel's municipal bond team. 'We are also closely monitoring the evolution of entitlement spending reduction proposals at the federal level but ultimately expect Medicaid cuts to be less pervasive than currently feared,' they added. Here are six reasons to be optimistic: The 10th amendment prohibits states, including California, from filing for bankruptcy. While defaults are technically possible, California is nowhere near default based on current less than a month in the current fiscal year, tax revenues are weakening but remain strong, with Governor Newsom's recent May Revision projecting a relatively small $12 billion projected for next year. IPO activity, while down, is not a core revenue driver. Its recent decline reflects a normalization post-COVID stimulus, not a structural weakness. All three major credit agencies S&P, Moody's, and Fitch—rate California AA-/Aa2/AA, respectively, all with stable outlooks but we expect the ratings agencies to refine their views this summer following the finalization of the FY 2026 budget process by the end of gross domestic product (GDP) ranks #4 globally, recently surpassing Japan, underscoring a broad, diverse and innovative state economy with a deep employment base. Although reserves have dipped since 2023 due to pandemic fund drawdowns and budgetary uncertainty in FY 2023/2024 due to delayed tax receipts, they remain at comparatively strong levels historically that will grant state leadership time to navigate federal policy uncertainty, which Governor Newsom blames for a softening of service is low at 3–4% of governmental expenditures, and pension funding remains solid. Because of constitutional protections that prioritize education and debt payments, revenue would need to drop over 50% to threaten debt service. For context, State revenues dropped 15% in uncertainty, California retains healthy credit fundamentals with relatively stable ratings, manageable deficits, excellent access to liquidity and conservative budgeting assumptions that support bondholder confidence. In summary, while recent headlines surrounding tariffs, fiscal tightening, and economic uncertainty have contributed to heightened market anxiety, our base case remains firm: Although California's credit profile is softening, it continues to demonstrate resilience, supported by a vast and diversified tax base, substantial reserve levels across all governmental funds, and long-term liabilities that we consider both moderate and manageable. Here is a link to the full report. ABOUT PAYDEN & RYGEL With $165 billion under management, Payden & Rygel is one of the largest privately-owned global investment advisers focused on the active management of fixed income and equity portfolios. Payden & Rygel provides a full range of investment strategies and solutions to investors around the globe, including Central Banks, Pension Funds, Insurance Companies, Private Banks, and Foundations. Independent and privately-owned, Payden is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Boston, London, and Milan. Visit for more information about Payden's investment offerings, including US mutual funds and Irish-domiciled funds (subject to investor eligibility). This material reflects the firm's current opinion and is subject to change without notice. Sources for the material contained herein are deemed reliable but cannot be guaranteed. This material is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell or buy any security. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. For press requests, please contact:Kate Ennisennis@ Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
