Latest news with #BradyHandgunViolencePreventionActof1993
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment
Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their "sanctuary city" policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," Scalia wrote for the Court's majority in Printz v. United States (1997), "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." At issue in Printz was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which, among other things, required state and local police to help the feds enforce federal gun control laws. However, Scalia held, such "federal commandeering of state governments" violated the constitutional principles of federalism secured by the 10th Amendment. Scalia's ruling in Printz was recently reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. At the time it was decided, Printz was widely criticized by liberals, who objected to the idea of state and local officials stymying a federal gun control scheme. Now, the same anticommandeering doctrine that led to a "conservative" result in Printz is standing in the way of Trump's immigration crackdown. According to Trump's Justice Department, sanctuary city policies, such as when local police are generally forbidden from notifying the feds about a noncitizen's custody status or release date from custody, "reflect an intentional effort to obstruct federal law enforcement." But federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law. Because these sanctuary cases all feature the federal government in direct and open conflict with a state or city, one or more of them will probably end up before the Supreme Court in due time. Perhaps it will be United States v. Illinois. Last week, Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division ruled that the Prairie State's various sanctuary laws were safeguarded from the Trump administration's lawsuit by the anticommandeering principle embraced in Printz, Murphy, and related precedents. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois'] 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. I expect a majority of the Supreme Court to adopt the same position if or when the opportunity arises. If it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal gun control, it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal immigration control. The national policies under dispute may be different, but the underlying constitutional issue is the same. As long as Printz remains good law, Trump's efforts to override the actions of sanctuary states and cities will be thwarted by Scalia's judgment. The post On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles stands on shaky legal ground
President Donald Trump has unilaterally summoned thousands of members of the California National Guard into federal service in response to the protests and riots that have broken out in Los Angeles over his immigration crackdowns. But the federal law that Trump has cited in support of that National Guard deployment would seem to forbid the very thing that Trump is now doing. According to Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, the president may call the National Guard into federal service under certain limited circumstances, such as when the United States "is invaded" or when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government." The law further states that the president may federalize National Guard members "of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute" the laws of the United States. However, the law adds: "Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States." Notice the unambiguous statutory command: "shall be issued through the governors of the States." If a governor has not issued the order—perhaps because the governor disagreed with the president's position and declined to support it—then the terms of the law have not been met. Which brings us to the case of Newsom v. Trump. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has not only refused to issue such an order, but Newsom, acting in his official capacity as governor, has also now filed suit against Trump, charging that the president's unilateral actions are illegal under federal law. Newsom's statutory argument seems correct to me. As the complaint in Newsom v. Trump notes, "President Trump's Memo purporting to call into federal service members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 without issuing this order through Governor Newsom is contrary to law and outside of the authority granted to the President under that statute." To my surprise, however, Newsom's complaint failed to cite Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court precedent which says that the federal government may not commandeer state officials into enforcing federal law. Printz centered on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which required state and local police to help enforce federal gun control laws. The Supreme Court ruled that requirement unconstitutional. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." So, not only does 10 U.S.C. § 12406 say that the California National Guard cannot be federalized unless the order "shall be issued" by California's governor, but Printz further says that California's governor cannot be directed "to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." Under Printz, in other words, Newsom cannot be compelled to issue the order that Trump needs Newsom to issue in order for the California National Guard to be lawfully federalized. Printz seems like the sort of precedent that Newsom ought to be citing. To be sure, there are other potential scenarios under which Trump may lawfully deploy National Guard forces to L.A. without first obtaining Newsom's support. For example, if Trump asked the governor of a "red" state to issue such an order, and if that Republican governor complied, then Trump could conceivably deploy the National Guard forces from that red state to Los Angeles. (Note: This scenario does not address the separate legal question about whether an "invasion" or "rebellion" is actually occurring in L.A.) There is also the specter of the Insurrection Act lurking in the background. If properly invoked by the president, that sweeping law would permit Trump to federalize National Guard forces without the consent of any governor. There are reports that Trump may be contemplating this drastic step. The case of Newsom v. Trump has landed on the docket of a federal district court judge named Charles Breyer. If that name sounds familiar, it might be because you've heard of his brother, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer has scheduled the first hearing in Newsom v. Trump for later today. We'll see what happens next. If you watched the first season of the brilliant Star Wars spinoff show Andor, you no doubt remember the three-episode arc set on the planet Aldhani, in which a small band of scruffy-looking rebels pulled off a daring robbery at an imperial military base. According to Andor creator Tony Gilroy, that fictional heist was partially inspired by historian Simon Sebag Montefiore's tremendous book Young Stalin, which detailed how the future tyrant got his revolutionary start by carrying out "bank robberies, protection-rackets, extortion, arson, piracy, murder." It was this "political gangsterism," Montefiore explained, "that impressed [Vladimir] Lenin and trained [Joseph] Stalin in the very skills that would prove invaluable in the political jungle of the Soviet Union." Partially inspired by Andor, I recently started rereading Young Stalin for the first time in over a decade, and the book is even better than I remembered. If you're in the market for a gripping and illuminating work of history, I highly recommend it. The post Trump's L.A. National Guard Deployment Stands on Shaky Legal Ground appeared first on
