Speaker 1: The Trump administration is siding with the state of Texas
Speaker 1: and it's crackdown on sanctuary cities and Justice Department lawyers
Speaker 1: will show up in the San Antonio courtroom today for
Speaker 1: the legal battle with four major Texas cities. Republican Texas
Speaker 1: Governor Greg Abbott signed a law requiring cities and towns
Speaker 1: to cooperate with federal immigration officials and more. Texas has
Speaker 1: now banned sanctuary cities in the longe Star state. The
Speaker 1: four largest cities in Texas joined a lawsuit brought by
Speaker 1: El Sensio, arguing that the law threatens the guarantees of
Speaker 1: free speech and equal protection. Here's Mayor raw reyes of
Speaker 1: El Censio's hate and we know better than this. Joining
Speaker 1: us is Rick Sue, professor at the University of Buffalo
Speaker 1: School of Law. Rick, the Trump administration has been fighting
Speaker 1: so called sanctuary cities since day one. What are the
Speaker 1: most restrictive provisions of this Texas law? Uh So, the
Speaker 1: most restricted provisions actually have to deal with the penalties. Um.
Speaker 1: This is sort of a unique law in terms of
Speaker 1: the fact that, uh it authorizes removal of officials if
Speaker 1: they were to endorse or have a pattern of practice
Speaker 1: of not cooperating and also letting fines directly against the city. So,
Speaker 1: as you can see, with the Trump administration, a law
Speaker 1: of discussion has been about how do we actually compel
Speaker 1: cities to do a particular course of action. Uh. Trump
Speaker 1: administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding. Uh. The state
Speaker 1: here has gone even further than that with removable office
Speaker 1: and direct fines. Well, rick laws defenders say it's not
Speaker 1: a show me your papers kind of law. That it's more.
Speaker 1: Although it's a very strong law, say Texas officials, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: It doesn't go as far as some other laws might.
Speaker 1: But what exactly does this law do in regard to
Speaker 1: sanctuary cities? Uh? So it does two things. First, has
Speaker 1: a very broad provision, arguably vague, with regard to any
Speaker 1: effort to UM restrict any official from not not participating
Speaker 1: with the federal government immigration enforcement. UM. I say this
Speaker 1: as broad because it doesn't just target specific so called
Speaker 1: sanctuary policies. UH. It would actual target endorsement or any
Speaker 1: types of things that may be suggested to be pattern
Speaker 1: or practice. We'll see what the court decided that to be.
Speaker 1: The second has to do with this issue of detainers
Speaker 1: and these are federal requests for local law enforcement to
Speaker 1: hold a particular individual for up just fourty eight hours
Speaker 1: so that the federal government can pick that individual up.
Speaker 1: There were many cities that were concerned about the costs,
Speaker 1: concerned about the liability that comes with doing so, that
Speaker 1: have decided not to participate or participate only in select rounds. Uh.
Speaker 1: This particular law, as before, would mandate participation and cooperation
Speaker 1: with detainer requests in all cases. Rick, what are the
Speaker 1: cities arguing? I think the city is arguing two things. UM.
Speaker 1: I think on the one hand, they are concerned about
Speaker 1: the policy and escalation enforcement. On the other hand, it's
Speaker 1: very mundane and things that local communities are concerned about
Speaker 1: in various other contexts. Uh. They're concerned that this is
Speaker 1: an unfunded mandate, their substantial costs that are associated with it,
Speaker 1: and as far as I can see, neither the federal
Speaker 1: government or the state are interested in reimbursing those costs. UH.
Speaker 1: They're concerned about priorities. UM. Right now we have a
Speaker 1: decentralized system of law enforcement. Communities decide what is their priority.
Speaker 1: What is the biggest concern is that opiate epidemic. Is
Speaker 1: it murders is a gun shooting, gain violence is a robberies. UH.
Speaker 1: And they're concerned that this essentially frustrates their ability to
Speaker 1: set priorities. UH if they have to tolerate and allow
Speaker 1: in some ways, UH force their law enforcement officials to
Speaker 1: focus on immigration when something else might be more important.
Speaker 1: Rick the you know, one can posit a lot of
Speaker 1: policy disagreements, but you know that the state made this
Speaker 1: policy judgment. Are their constitutional grounds against this law that
Speaker 1: the municipalities and counties can raise. So this is actually
Speaker 1: what makes this law very interesting. UM. When the federal government,
Speaker 1: for example, as the Trump administration is doing, trying to
Speaker 1: compel participation, there is constitutional protections there for local governments
Speaker 1: and local officials, but only because they are part of
Speaker 1: the state. The constitution puts a barrier, if you will,
Speaker 1: that prevents the federal government for forcing states to do
Speaker 1: certain things that they don't want to do. Here, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: right because there isn't any federal constitutional protections, though some
Speaker 1: are the arguments are being raised, UH that protects cities
Speaker 1: from their own states. The Constitution protects states and cities
Speaker 1: as part of the state, but there's nothing in the
Speaker 1: federal constitution that protects cities from the state. Now it
Speaker 1: does raise the interesting question is whether or not UH
Speaker 1: in Texas and other states there may be state constitutional
Speaker 1: protections with regard to what the state can do in
Speaker 1: terms of forcing their own local governments to follow their lead.
Speaker 1: So rick they're asking a federal judge the cities are
Speaker 1: to stop the law from going to effect on September one,
Speaker 1: while the case winds its way through the legal system.
Speaker 1: Where are the chances the judge will do that? I
Speaker 1: think there is so it's always hard to predict what
Speaker 1: a judge will do. Um And in some ways this
Speaker 1: case is interesting because although many cities have jumped in,
Speaker 1: it was actually the state that sued first. Right they
Speaker 1: passed law and then immediately sued the cities. UM. There
Speaker 1: is signs from this particular judge that he is concerned
Speaker 1: about the authority that local governments have. For example, in
Speaker 1: complying with detainer requests. He had an earlier decision that
Speaker 1: essentially held that the county itself was liable UH following
Speaker 1: a detainer request, even though the mistake was made by
Speaker 1: the federal government. UM So this may and I think
Speaker 1: there has been a lot of scramble to get it
Speaker 1: before this particular judge. So I think that there is
Speaker 1: a good chance, at least in the beginning, that we're
Speaker 1: going to have some sort of uh maybe a stay
Speaker 1: or restraining order. All Right, we'll have to leave it there, Rick,
Speaker 1: super Professor of the University of Buffalo School of Law.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us.