Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: A couple of updates. 1. Please find attached a complaint filed by the federal government today suing Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County over their immigration laws claiming that those ordinances and laws violate the Supremacy Clause and are preempted; that they unlawfully discriminate against the federal government; and unlawfully regulate the federal government. It is worth noting that the Seventh Circuit was home to quite a lot of litigation during the last Trump presidency and those decisions favored Chicago. See City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020). To the best of my recollection, the Supremacy Clause was not argued last time and this is an action seeking to invalidate the State law and city and county ordinances, so it's a different posture. But I would think the Barr case will play into this, particularly as it relates to 8 USC 1373. 2. It looks like the 4 Mayors who Congress is seeking to come testify regarding so-called "sanctuary laws" will be testifying on 3/5 according to this article: https://www.wbez.org/city-hall/2025/02/05/migrants-deportations-trump-homeland-security-ice-oversight-committee-brandon-johnson-testimony-dc. Also, you should have received a calendar appointment for our next call on 2/19 at 2 pm eastern. The zoom link is in the calendar appointment and I'll send a reminder out closer in time to the meeting. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.

Good morning: In light of yesterday's lawsuit by the federal government against Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois, I thought it would be worth sending United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) over to you all for your review / refresher. This was one of the few and perhaps only cases during the first Trump presidency where the federal government affirmatively sued a state (or locality) arguing the Supremacy Clause and preemption principles should invalidate state laws involving immigration enforcement (at least as best I can recall). Of particular interest now is California's SB 54, which limited cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. As summarized by the Ninth Circuit, SB 54 "Among other things, ... prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from "[i]nquiring into an individual's immigration status"; "[d]etaining an individual on the basis of a hold request"; "[p]roviding information regarding a person's release date or" other "personal information," such as "the individual's home address or work address"; and "[a]ssisting immigration authorities" in certain activities. Id. § 7284.6(a)(1). SB 54 contains some exceptions to these prohibitions." United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865, 876 (9th Cir. 2019). The federal government challenged SB54 (and other laws) as violating the Supremacy Clause. The Ninth Circuit rejected the federal government's arguments, largely along Tenth Amendment grounds. Here are a couple of excerpts from the analysis: The district court concluded that this frustration does not constitute obstacle preemption: California's decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an "obstacle" to that enforcement effort. [The United States'] argument that SB 54 makes immigration enforcement far more burdensome begs the question: more burdensome than what? The laws make enforcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement provided immigration officers with their assistance. But refusing to help is not the same as impeding. If such were the rule, obstacle preemption could be used to commandeer state resources and subvert Tenth Amendment principles. California I, 314 F.Supp.3d at 1104.13 We agree. Even if SB 54 obstructs federal immigration enforcement, the United States' position that such obstruction is unlawful runs directly afoul of the Tenth Amendment and the anticommandeering rule. Here, by contrast, invalidating SB 54 would not prevent obstruction of the federal government's activities, because the INA does not require any particular action on the part of California or its political subdivisions. Federal law provides states and localities the option, not the requirement, of assisting federal immigration authorities. SB 54 simply makes that choice for California law enforcement agencies. The United States' primary argument against SB 54 is that it forces federal authorities to expend greater resources to enforce immigration laws, but that would be the case regardless of SB 54, since California would still retain the ability to "decline to administer the federal program." New York, 505 U.S. at 177, 112 S.Ct. 2408. As the Supreme Court recently rearticulated in Murphy, under the anticommandeering rule, "Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures," 138 S.Ct. at 1478, and the Court's earlier decision in New York underscored that the rule also permits a state's refusal to adopt preferred federal policies. See 505 U.S. at 161-62, 112 S.Ct. 2408. Even in the absence of SB 54, Congress could not "impress into its service-and at no cost to itself-the police officers of the 50 States." Printz, 521 U.S. at 922, 117 S.Ct. 2365.15 SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts. However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, *891 that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts. The United States stresses that, in crafting the INA, Congress expected cooperation between states and federal immigration authorities. That is likely the case. But when questions of federalism are involved, we must distinguish between expectations and requirements. In this context, the federal government was free to expect as much as it wanted, but it could not require California's cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment. I am attaching the decision here for your reference. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming. From: Amanda Karras via Immigration <immigration@lists.imla.org> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 1:13 PM Subject: [Immigration] IMLA Immigration Working Group Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: A couple of updates. 1. Please find attached a complaint filed by the federal government today suing Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County over their immigration laws claiming that those ordinances and laws violate the Supremacy Clause and are preempted; that they unlawfully discriminate against the federal government; and unlawfully regulate the federal government. It is worth noting that the Seventh Circuit was home to quite a lot of litigation during the last Trump presidency and those decisions favored Chicago. See City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020). To the best of my recollection, the Supremacy Clause was not argued last time and this is an action seeking to invalidate the State law and city and county ordinances, so it's a different posture. But I would think the Barr case will play into this, particularly as it relates to 8 USC 1373. 2. It looks like the 4 Mayors who Congress is seeking to come testify regarding so-called "sanctuary laws" will be testifying on 3/5 according to this article: https://www.wbez.org/city-hall/2025/02/05/migrants-deportations-trump-homeland-security-ice-oversight-committee-brandon-johnson-testimony-dc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wbez.org_city-2Dhall_2025_02_05_migrants-2Ddeportations-2Dtrump-2Dhomeland-2Dsecurity-2Dice-2Doversight-2Dcommittee-2Dbrandon-2Djohnson-2Dtestimony-2Ddc&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=B4CGIf5X-x9OWrALKepUw7KD3sRJmLKM5HZcqVOYsAM&e=>. Also, you should have received a calendar appointment for our next call on 2/19 at 2 pm eastern. The zoom link is in the calendar appointment and I'll send a reminder out closer in time to the meeting. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=_hfFMAiVQ_W4upKiQrhImydFfDAG772BEqImZDaaSZc&e=> [facebook icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=M_KzdAgcV-G8o75oIuq82MLJlDYTk0iKxbg3IeZAOWo&e=>[twitter icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_imlalegal&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=48xlmEe0LEvk6qgImgHV-0z-uGnx2TKRcJIpJedGrOw&e=>[linkedin icon]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_international-2Dmunicipal-2Dlawyers-2Dassociation-2Dinc._&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=kNxBbWXhXCIGbnOFeWQy53AT3aTYGrD9ynx0q11990A&e=> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_events_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=wFCgeAetslocVJdYLeQRPmne21YQc4RJV1K9yhSejQjDypLdn8RxSLfp3YTW0TKi&s=-Xb0KZmOYEZE_mhu734nDY90BbJAdwV9iwYZnIh1rTU&e=>, calls and programming.