State immigration enforcement vs DHS
I. Overview
Immigration enforcement in the U.S. is primarily a federal responsibility, vested in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
However, states have attempted to enforce immigration laws or adopt policies that affect immigration status, leading to legal conflicts over:
The preemption doctrine (whether federal law supersedes state law)
The extent of state and local authority in immigration enforcement
Sanctuary policies adopted by states or cities limiting cooperation with DHS
This interplay raises constitutional issues around federalism, separation of powers, and administrative authority.
II. Legal Framework
Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2): Federal immigration law preempts conflicting state laws.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Comprehensive federal statute governing immigration.
Section 287(g) of INA: Allows DHS to enter agreements with states/localities for limited immigration enforcement roles.
DHS Enforcement Priorities and Guidelines: Shape federal-local cooperation.
III. Key Case Law on State Immigration Enforcement vs. DHS
1. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Facts: Arizona enacted SB 1070, a strict immigration enforcement law, including provisions criminalizing certain immigration-related conduct.
Legal Issues: Preemption—whether federal immigration law preempts state enforcement.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down several provisions as preempted but upheld the controversial “show me your papers” provision allowing police to check immigration status during lawful stops.
Significance: Affirmed federal supremacy but allowed limited state cooperation in immigration enforcement. It set limits on state immigration laws interfering with federal objectives.
2. Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017)
Facts: Challenge to the Trump administration’s “travel ban” executive orders restricting entry from certain countries.
Issue: Role of DHS in executing immigration policy; states challenged federal action for overreach.
Holding: While the case focused on federal authority, it highlighted DHS’s broad discretion and limits on state interference.
Significance: Demonstrated the primacy of federal agencies in immigration control, limiting state influence.
3. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018)
Facts: Chicago, a sanctuary city, sued the Attorney General (representing DHS) over efforts to withhold federal grants due to non-cooperation with immigration enforcement.
Issue: Whether DHS can condition federal grants on local enforcement cooperation.
Holding: The Seventh Circuit blocked DHS’s conditions, ruling they exceeded statutory authority and violated the separation of powers.
Significance: Protected state/local autonomy from federal coercion, balancing federal authority with local discretion in immigration enforcement.
4. United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019)
Facts: The federal government sued California over its sanctuary laws limiting cooperation with DHS.
Issue: Whether California’s laws were preempted by federal immigration law.
Holding: The court struck down parts of California’s laws that conflicted with federal enforcement but upheld other protections for immigrants.
Significance: Reinforced limits on state laws obstructing federal immigration enforcement, but recognized some state protections.
5. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President of the United States, 888 F.3d 52 (3d Cir. 2018)
Facts: Pennsylvania challenged Trump administration policies encouraging states/localities to enforce immigration laws.
Issue: Whether the federal government could withhold grants from non-cooperating states.
Holding: The Third Circuit ruled that the administration exceeded its authority.
Significance: Like Chicago case, limited federal ability to compel state enforcement of immigration laws.
6. United States v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 1964 (2023)
Facts: Texas sued to block DHS’s immigration enforcement policies (like Deferred Action programs).
Issue: Whether DHS exceeded its statutory authority in immigration enforcement discretion.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled narrowly against DHS, limiting its ability to suspend immigration enforcement broadly.
Significance: Affirmed states’ standing to challenge federal immigration policies but also underscored DHS’s broad enforcement discretion within statutory limits.
IV. Themes and Legal Principles
1. Federal Preemption
Immigration is primarily a federal matter.
States may not enact laws that conflict with federal immigration policies.
Courts apply field preemption where federal law occupies the field exclusively.
However, states can cooperate with federal enforcement if consistent with federal law.
2. State and Local Cooperation
Under 287(g) agreements, states/localities may participate in immigration enforcement, but only with federal authorization.
Sanctuary policies that limit cooperation are contentious but generally allowed unless they obstruct federal enforcement.
3. Conditional Federal Funding
DHS attempts to condition grants on cooperation with immigration enforcement face judicial scrutiny.
Courts have limited federal coercion, protecting state/local discretion.
4. Standing and Judicial Review
States can sue DHS to challenge immigration policies that affect their interests.
Courts balance deference to federal executive discretion with statutory limits.
V. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona v. United States | 2012 | State immigration law preemption | Struck down conflicting provisions, allowed some state role |
| Hawaii v. Trump | 2017 | Federal DHS immigration policy vs. state challenges | Affirmed DHS discretion, limited state role |
| City of Chicago v. Sessions | 2018 | DHS conditioning grants on enforcement cooperation | Blocked federal coercion against sanctuary cities |
| United States v. California | 2019 | Sanctuary laws vs. federal enforcement | Struck down obstructive laws, upheld some immigrant protections |
| Pennsylvania v. Trump | 2018 | Federal withholding grants over enforcement cooperation | Limited federal authority to coerce states |
| United States v. Texas | 2023 | DHS enforcement discretion challenged | Limited DHS power to broadly suspend enforcement |
VI. Conclusion
The relationship between state immigration enforcement and DHS is shaped by:
Federal supremacy in immigration law, limiting states’ ability to independently enforce immigration laws.
State and local cooperation, allowed but controlled by DHS and subject to federal law.
Sanctuary policies protecting immigrant communities, which courts have generally upheld unless they directly obstruct federal enforcement.
Judicial scrutiny over attempts by DHS to coerce state/local cooperation through funding conditions.
Ongoing litigation balancing federal enforcement authority with states’ rights and discretion.
This dynamic area of law continues evolving as courts clarify the boundaries between federal power and state autonomy in immigration enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments