1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,840 Speaker 1: The Trump administration is siding with the state of Texas 2 00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:06,600 Speaker 1: and it's crackdown on sanctuary cities and Justice Department lawyers 3 00:00:06,640 --> 00:00:09,040 Speaker 1: will show up in the San Antonio courtroom today for 4 00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:13,039 Speaker 1: the legal battle with four major Texas cities. Republican Texas 5 00:00:13,119 --> 00:00:16,480 Speaker 1: Governor Greg Abbott signed a law requiring cities and towns 6 00:00:16,480 --> 00:00:21,400 Speaker 1: to cooperate with federal immigration officials and more. Texas has 7 00:00:21,480 --> 00:00:26,360 Speaker 1: now banned sanctuary cities in the longe Star state. The 8 00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:29,640 Speaker 1: four largest cities in Texas joined a lawsuit brought by 9 00:00:29,680 --> 00:00:33,360 Speaker 1: El Sensio, arguing that the law threatens the guarantees of 10 00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:37,159 Speaker 1: free speech and equal protection. Here's Mayor raw reyes of 11 00:00:37,240 --> 00:00:44,839 Speaker 1: El Censio's hate and we know better than this. Joining 12 00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:47,760 Speaker 1: us is Rick Sue, professor at the University of Buffalo 13 00:00:47,880 --> 00:00:51,680 Speaker 1: School of Law. Rick, the Trump administration has been fighting 14 00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:56,319 Speaker 1: so called sanctuary cities since day one. What are the 15 00:00:56,360 --> 00:01:01,040 Speaker 1: most restrictive provisions of this Texas law? Uh So, the 16 00:01:01,080 --> 00:01:04,960 Speaker 1: most restricted provisions actually have to deal with the penalties. Um. 17 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:07,160 Speaker 1: This is sort of a unique law in terms of 18 00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:11,640 Speaker 1: the fact that, uh it authorizes removal of officials if 19 00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:14,240 Speaker 1: they were to endorse or have a pattern of practice 20 00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:18,240 Speaker 1: of not cooperating and also letting fines directly against the city. So, 21 00:01:18,800 --> 00:01:20,800 Speaker 1: as you can see, with the Trump administration, a law 22 00:01:20,840 --> 00:01:24,200 Speaker 1: of discussion has been about how do we actually compel 23 00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:27,320 Speaker 1: cities to do a particular course of action. Uh. Trump 24 00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:30,639 Speaker 1: administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding. Uh. The state 25 00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:33,720 Speaker 1: here has gone even further than that with removable office 26 00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:38,080 Speaker 1: and direct fines. Well, rick laws defenders say it's not 27 00:01:38,120 --> 00:01:41,320 Speaker 1: a show me your papers kind of law. That it's more. 28 00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:44,880 Speaker 1: Although it's a very strong law, say Texas officials, it doesn't. 29 00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:47,280 Speaker 1: It doesn't go as far as some other laws might. 30 00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:50,760 Speaker 1: But what exactly does this law do in regard to 31 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:54,800 Speaker 1: sanctuary cities? Uh? So it does two things. First, has 32 00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:59,400 Speaker 1: a very broad provision, arguably vague, with regard to any 33 00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:05,400 Speaker 1: effort to UM restrict any official from not not participating 34 00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:08,080 Speaker 1: with the federal government immigration enforcement. UM. I say this 35 00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:11,400 Speaker 1: as broad because it doesn't just target specific so called 36 00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:15,880 Speaker 1: sanctuary policies. UH. It would actual target endorsement or any 37 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:18,720 Speaker 1: types of things that may be suggested to be pattern 38 00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:20,760 Speaker 1: or practice. We'll see what the court decided that to be. 39 00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:23,839 Speaker 1: The second has to do with this issue of detainers 40 00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 1: and these are federal requests for local law enforcement to 41 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:32,200 Speaker 1: hold a particular individual for up just fourty eight hours 42 00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:34,880 Speaker 1: so that the federal government can pick that individual up. 43 00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:37,720 Speaker 1: There were many cities that were concerned about the costs, 44 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:41,000 Speaker 1: concerned about the liability that comes with doing so, that 45 00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:45,359 Speaker 1: have decided not to participate or participate only in select rounds. Uh. 46 00:02:45,440 --> 00:02:49,960 Speaker 1: This particular law, as before, would mandate participation and cooperation 47 00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:53,760 Speaker 1: with detainer requests in all cases. Rick, what are the 48 00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:58,040 Speaker 1: cities arguing? I think the city is arguing two things. UM. 49 00:02:58,080 --> 00:02:59,800 Speaker 1: I think on the one hand, they are concerned about 50 00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:03,240 Speaker 1: the policy and escalation enforcement. On the other hand, it's 51 00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:07,000 Speaker 1: very mundane and things that local communities are concerned about 52 00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:10,359 Speaker 1: in various other contexts. Uh. They're concerned that this is 53 00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:13,800 Speaker 1: an unfunded mandate, their substantial costs that are associated with it, 54 00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:15,840 Speaker 1: and as far as I can see, neither the federal 55 00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,920 Speaker 1: government or the state are interested in reimbursing those costs. UH. 56 00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,120 Speaker 1: They're concerned about priorities. UM. Right now we have a 57 00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:26,320 Speaker 1: decentralized system of law enforcement. Communities decide what is their priority. 58 00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:29,520 Speaker 1: What is the biggest concern is that opiate epidemic. Is 59 00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:33,560 Speaker 1: it murders is a gun shooting, gain violence is a robberies. UH. 60 00:03:33,600 --> 00:03:36,720 Speaker 1: And they're concerned that this essentially frustrates their ability to 61 00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:39,960 Speaker 1: set priorities. UH if they have to tolerate and allow 62 00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:45,360 Speaker 1: in some ways, UH force their law enforcement officials to 63 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:47,840 Speaker 1: focus on immigration when something else might be more important. 64 00:03:48,440 --> 00:03:51,000 Speaker 1: Rick the you know, one can posit a lot of 65 00:03:51,160 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 1: policy disagreements, but you know that the state made this 66 00:03:53,920 --> 00:04:00,200 Speaker 1: policy judgment. Are their constitutional grounds against this law that 67 00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:04,000 Speaker 1: the municipalities and counties can raise. So this is actually 68 00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:07,520 Speaker 1: what makes this law very interesting. UM. When the federal government, 69 00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:10,480 Speaker 1: for example, as the Trump administration is doing, trying to 70 00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:15,680 Speaker 1: compel participation, there is constitutional protections there for local governments 71 00:04:15,680 --> 00:04:18,640 Speaker 1: and local officials, but only because they are part of 72 00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:21,840 Speaker 1: the state. The constitution puts a barrier, if you will, 73 00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:24,920 Speaker 1: that prevents the federal government for forcing states to do 74 00:04:25,000 --> 00:04:28,279 Speaker 1: certain things that they don't want to do. Here, it's interesting, 75 00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:32,000 Speaker 1: right because there isn't any federal constitutional protections, though some 76 00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:35,520 Speaker 1: are the arguments are being raised, UH that protects cities 77 00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:39,839 Speaker 1: from their own states. The Constitution protects states and cities 78 00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:42,120 Speaker 1: as part of the state, but there's nothing in the 79 00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:45,279 Speaker 1: federal constitution that protects cities from the state. Now it 80 00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:48,480 Speaker 1: does raise the interesting question is whether or not UH 81 00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:51,159 Speaker 1: in Texas and other states there may be state constitutional 82 00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:54,280 Speaker 1: protections with regard to what the state can do in 83 00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,760 Speaker 1: terms of forcing their own local governments to follow their lead. 84 00:04:58,120 --> 00:05:00,880 Speaker 1: So rick they're asking a federal judge the cities are 85 00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:04,120 Speaker 1: to stop the law from going to effect on September one, 86 00:05:04,200 --> 00:05:07,279 Speaker 1: while the case winds its way through the legal system. 87 00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:10,880 Speaker 1: Where are the chances the judge will do that? I 88 00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,080 Speaker 1: think there is so it's always hard to predict what 89 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:16,960 Speaker 1: a judge will do. Um And in some ways this 90 00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:20,360 Speaker 1: case is interesting because although many cities have jumped in, 91 00:05:20,680 --> 00:05:23,200 Speaker 1: it was actually the state that sued first. Right they 92 00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:27,440 Speaker 1: passed law and then immediately sued the cities. UM. There 93 00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:31,120 Speaker 1: is signs from this particular judge that he is concerned 94 00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:34,960 Speaker 1: about the authority that local governments have. For example, in 95 00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:38,680 Speaker 1: complying with detainer requests. He had an earlier decision that 96 00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:43,480 Speaker 1: essentially held that the county itself was liable UH following 97 00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:45,760 Speaker 1: a detainer request, even though the mistake was made by 98 00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:49,560 Speaker 1: the federal government. UM So this may and I think 99 00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:51,159 Speaker 1: there has been a lot of scramble to get it 100 00:05:51,200 --> 00:05:53,320 Speaker 1: before this particular judge. So I think that there is 101 00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:55,720 Speaker 1: a good chance, at least in the beginning, that we're 102 00:05:55,720 --> 00:05:59,000 Speaker 1: going to have some sort of uh maybe a stay 103 00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:02,120 Speaker 1: or restraining order. All Right, we'll have to leave it there, Rick, 104 00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:05,360 Speaker 1: super Professor of the University of Buffalo School of Law. 105 00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:06,400 Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us.