WEBVTT - Texas Sanctuary Cities Law Goes To Court (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration is siding with the state of Texas

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:06.600
<v Speaker 1>and it's crackdown on sanctuary cities and Justice Department lawyers

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:09.040
<v Speaker 1>will show up in the San Antonio courtroom today for

0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:13.039
<v Speaker 1>the legal battle with four major Texas cities. Republican Texas

0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:16.480
<v Speaker 1>Governor Greg Abbott signed a law requiring cities and towns

0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:21.400
<v Speaker 1>to cooperate with federal immigration officials and more. Texas has

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>now banned sanctuary cities in the longe Star state. The

0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:29.640
<v Speaker 1>four largest cities in Texas joined a lawsuit brought by

0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:33.360
<v Speaker 1>El Sensio, arguing that the law threatens the guarantees of

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:37.159
<v Speaker 1>free speech and equal protection. Here's Mayor raw reyes of

0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>El Censio's hate and we know better than this. Joining

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:47.760
<v Speaker 1>us is Rick Sue, professor at the University of Buffalo

0:00:47.880 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 1>School of Law. Rick, the Trump administration has been fighting

0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:56.319
<v Speaker 1>so called sanctuary cities since day one. What are the

0:00:56.360 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>most restrictive provisions of this Texas law? Uh So, the

0:01:01.080 --> 0:01:04.960
<v Speaker 1>most restricted provisions actually have to deal with the penalties. Um.

0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 1>This is sort of a unique law in terms of

0:01:07.200 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 1>the fact that, uh it authorizes removal of officials if

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 1>they were to endorse or have a pattern of practice

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 1>of not cooperating and also letting fines directly against the city. So,

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 1>as you can see, with the Trump administration, a law

0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 1>of discussion has been about how do we actually compel

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:27.320
<v Speaker 1>cities to do a particular course of action. Uh. Trump

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:30.639
<v Speaker 1>administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding. Uh. The state

0:01:30.680 --> 0:01:33.720
<v Speaker 1>here has gone even further than that with removable office

0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 1>and direct fines. Well, rick laws defenders say it's not

0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:41.320
<v Speaker 1>a show me your papers kind of law. That it's more.

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Although it's a very strong law, say Texas officials, it doesn't.

0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't go as far as some other laws might.

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:50.760
<v Speaker 1>But what exactly does this law do in regard to

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>sanctuary cities? Uh? So it does two things. First, has

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>a very broad provision, arguably vague, with regard to any

0:01:59.560 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>effort to UM restrict any official from not not participating

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:08.080
<v Speaker 1>with the federal government immigration enforcement. UM. I say this

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:11.400
<v Speaker 1>as broad because it doesn't just target specific so called

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 1>sanctuary policies. UH. It would actual target endorsement or any

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:18.720
<v Speaker 1>types of things that may be suggested to be pattern

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:20.760
<v Speaker 1>or practice. We'll see what the court decided that to be.

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:23.839
<v Speaker 1>The second has to do with this issue of detainers

0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>and these are federal requests for local law enforcement to

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 1>hold a particular individual for up just fourty eight hours

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:34.880
<v Speaker 1>so that the federal government can pick that individual up.

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:37.720
<v Speaker 1>There were many cities that were concerned about the costs,

0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:41.000
<v Speaker 1>concerned about the liability that comes with doing so, that

0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:45.359
<v Speaker 1>have decided not to participate or participate only in select rounds. Uh.

0:02:45.440 --> 0:02:49.960
<v Speaker 1>This particular law, as before, would mandate participation and cooperation

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 1>with detainer requests in all cases. Rick, what are the

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 1>cities arguing? I think the city is arguing two things. UM.

0:02:58.080 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 1>I think on the one hand, they are concerned about

0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:03.240
<v Speaker 1>the policy and escalation enforcement. On the other hand, it's

0:03:03.320 --> 0:03:07.000
<v Speaker 1>very mundane and things that local communities are concerned about

0:03:07.360 --> 0:03:10.359
<v Speaker 1>in various other contexts. Uh. They're concerned that this is

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:13.800
<v Speaker 1>an unfunded mandate, their substantial costs that are associated with it,

0:03:13.840 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>and as far as I can see, neither the federal

0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:18.920
<v Speaker 1>government or the state are interested in reimbursing those costs. UH.

0:03:18.919 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>They're concerned about priorities. UM. Right now we have a

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 1>decentralized system of law enforcement. Communities decide what is their priority.

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 1>What is the biggest concern is that opiate epidemic. Is

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.560
<v Speaker 1>it murders is a gun shooting, gain violence is a robberies. UH.

0:03:33.600 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 1>And they're concerned that this essentially frustrates their ability to

0:03:36.800 --> 0:03:39.960
<v Speaker 1>set priorities. UH if they have to tolerate and allow

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 1>in some ways, UH force their law enforcement officials to

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:47.840
<v Speaker 1>focus on immigration when something else might be more important.

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 1>Rick the you know, one can posit a lot of

0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>policy disagreements, but you know that the state made this

0:03:53.920 --> 0:04:00.200
<v Speaker 1>policy judgment. Are their constitutional grounds against this law that

0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>the municipalities and counties can raise. So this is actually

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:07.520
<v Speaker 1>what makes this law very interesting. UM. When the federal government,

0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 1>for example, as the Trump administration is doing, trying to

0:04:10.560 --> 0:04:15.680
<v Speaker 1>compel participation, there is constitutional protections there for local governments

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>and local officials, but only because they are part of

0:04:18.640 --> 0:04:21.840
<v Speaker 1>the state. The constitution puts a barrier, if you will,

0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:24.920
<v Speaker 1>that prevents the federal government for forcing states to do

0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:28.279
<v Speaker 1>certain things that they don't want to do. Here, it's interesting,

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:32.000
<v Speaker 1>right because there isn't any federal constitutional protections, though some

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:35.520
<v Speaker 1>are the arguments are being raised, UH that protects cities

0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:39.839
<v Speaker 1>from their own states. The Constitution protects states and cities

0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:42.120
<v Speaker 1>as part of the state, but there's nothing in the

0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:45.279
<v Speaker 1>federal constitution that protects cities from the state. Now it

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:48.480
<v Speaker 1>does raise the interesting question is whether or not UH

0:04:48.560 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>in Texas and other states there may be state constitutional

0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:54.280
<v Speaker 1>protections with regard to what the state can do in

0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:57.760
<v Speaker 1>terms of forcing their own local governments to follow their lead.

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>So rick they're asking a federal judge the cities are

0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:04.120
<v Speaker 1>to stop the law from going to effect on September one,

0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:07.279
<v Speaker 1>while the case winds its way through the legal system.

0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:10.880
<v Speaker 1>Where are the chances the judge will do that? I

0:05:10.920 --> 0:05:14.080
<v Speaker 1>think there is so it's always hard to predict what

0:05:14.120 --> 0:05:16.960
<v Speaker 1>a judge will do. Um And in some ways this

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:20.360
<v Speaker 1>case is interesting because although many cities have jumped in,

0:05:20.680 --> 0:05:23.200
<v Speaker 1>it was actually the state that sued first. Right they

0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>passed law and then immediately sued the cities. UM. There

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 1>is signs from this particular judge that he is concerned

0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:34.960
<v Speaker 1>about the authority that local governments have. For example, in

0:05:35.080 --> 0:05:38.680
<v Speaker 1>complying with detainer requests. He had an earlier decision that

0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:43.480
<v Speaker 1>essentially held that the county itself was liable UH following

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>a detainer request, even though the mistake was made by

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:49.560
<v Speaker 1>the federal government. UM So this may and I think

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:51.159
<v Speaker 1>there has been a lot of scramble to get it

0:05:51.200 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 1>before this particular judge. So I think that there is

0:05:53.360 --> 0:05:55.720
<v Speaker 1>a good chance, at least in the beginning, that we're

0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 1>going to have some sort of uh maybe a stay

0:05:59.080 --> 0:06:02.120
<v Speaker 1>or restraining order. All Right, we'll have to leave it there, Rick,

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:05.360
<v Speaker 1>super Professor of the University of Buffalo School of Law.

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for being with us.