1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,720 Speaker 1: A bitter war of words over the crime wave in 2 00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:05,600 Speaker 1: Chicago is now a better legal fight between the city 3 00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:09,760 Speaker 1: and the Trump administration. Chicago yesterday sued the Trump administration, 4 00:00:09,760 --> 00:00:13,480 Speaker 1: claiming the Justice Department is unconstitutionally threatning, threatening to cut 5 00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:17,520 Speaker 1: off millions of dollars in federal law enforcement assistance. The 6 00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:20,920 Speaker 1: Justice Department rules take aim at so called sanctuary cities 7 00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:25,760 Speaker 1: for undocumented immigrants, requiring local officials to provide greater cooperation 8 00:00:25,840 --> 00:00:29,280 Speaker 1: to federal agents or lose their federal funding. At a 9 00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:32,400 Speaker 1: press conference, Chicago Mayor Ram Emmanual said that the rules 10 00:00:32,400 --> 00:00:36,960 Speaker 1: would undermine the city's community policing efforts. Chicago will not 11 00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:41,680 Speaker 1: let our police officers become political pawns in a debate. 12 00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:46,240 Speaker 1: Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights 13 00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:52,120 Speaker 1: isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status 14 00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:57,960 Speaker 1: as a welcoming city. Chicago's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, issued 15 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,560 Speaker 1: a pointed response, saying in eatement that Chicago needs quote 16 00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:04,640 Speaker 1: a recommitment to the rule of law and two policies 17 00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:07,560 Speaker 1: that roll back the culture of lawlessness that has beset 18 00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:10,720 Speaker 1: the city. With me to talk about this new lawsuit 19 00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:13,920 Speaker 1: and the precedents it might set is Rick Sue. He's 20 00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:17,280 Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law. Rick, 21 00:01:17,360 --> 00:01:21,640 Speaker 1: thanks for being on the show. Let's tell us the specifics. First, 22 00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:26,000 Speaker 1: the conditions that the Justice Department is trying to impose 23 00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,360 Speaker 1: on funds. What what do they require of the city. 24 00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:33,479 Speaker 1: So they're imposing two specific conditions. One is to allow 25 00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,480 Speaker 1: federal officials full access to all the jails and different 26 00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:40,280 Speaker 1: facilities of the city has, and the second is for 27 00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:43,920 Speaker 1: the city to give forty eight hours notice before releasing 28 00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:47,319 Speaker 1: anyone that the federal government is interested in. Okay, So, 29 00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:51,960 Speaker 1: back in April, a judge in California issued an injunction 30 00:01:52,080 --> 00:01:54,520 Speaker 1: that limited what the Trump administration could do in terms 31 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:59,120 Speaker 1: of imposing conditions on law enforcement of funding. How does 32 00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:03,360 Speaker 1: this shoe this case? These new conditions fit in with 33 00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:07,400 Speaker 1: that previous case. So it fits directly into it. The 34 00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:10,760 Speaker 1: legal issues involved or exactly the same, the degree to 35 00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:14,840 Speaker 1: which the president can impose conditions that aren't directly authorized 36 00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:17,680 Speaker 1: by Congress UH and whether the federal government can compel 37 00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:21,359 Speaker 1: cities to participate in immigration enforcement. What is new about 38 00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:25,079 Speaker 1: this is that although the prior lawsuit dealt with withdrawing 39 00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:28,480 Speaker 1: funds or grants I have already been improved. UH. This 40 00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:31,560 Speaker 1: is a new condition added to one specific grant and 41 00:02:31,600 --> 00:02:34,400 Speaker 1: it was just added in July. The grant application is 42 00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:37,400 Speaker 1: due soon in September. UH in the city is now 43 00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:41,839 Speaker 1: directly addressing this particular rant condition. So so this this 44 00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:46,600 Speaker 1: grant program, which pays for things like UH tasers and 45 00:02:46,600 --> 00:02:51,400 Speaker 1: and I think maybe police cars. UM is only Chicago 46 00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:54,359 Speaker 1: only gets about two point three million dollars a year. 47 00:02:54,440 --> 00:02:57,800 Speaker 1: That's what they got last year from the federal government. UM. 48 00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:01,800 Speaker 1: Is that enough money that Chicago can can plausibly claim 49 00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:05,800 Speaker 1: that it is being somehow coerced by the federal government 50 00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:09,920 Speaker 1: into agreeing to these conditions. UM. So we were to 51 00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:12,440 Speaker 1: rely on a previous case law with regard to actual 52 00:03:12,480 --> 00:03:14,919 Speaker 1: corrosion when they're using the power of the purse, it's 53 00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:17,520 Speaker 1: likely that this wouldn't be sufficient. It's not as large, 54 00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:19,880 Speaker 1: let's say, as the Medicaid expansion and the amount of 55 00:03:19,880 --> 00:03:22,960 Speaker 1: penalties that were imposed on that. However, what's interesting about 56 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:26,280 Speaker 1: this targeting this specific Grand Program is that the funding 57 00:03:26,320 --> 00:03:30,320 Speaker 1: formula for the Grand Program is entirely set by Congressional statute. UH, 58 00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:33,840 Speaker 1: and Congress didn't say anything about other conditions or the 59 00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:37,480 Speaker 1: executive having the discretion to impose other conditions because of that. 60 00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:42,880 Speaker 1: What Chicago specifically arguing is that this particular condition violates 61 00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:45,320 Speaker 1: what Congress wrote the statute. So it's really a separation 62 00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:47,600 Speaker 1: of the power issue as well between the president and Congress. 63 00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:50,560 Speaker 1: Is that what you think chicago strongest argument is is 64 00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:54,720 Speaker 1: here this operation of powers as opposed to the spending 65 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:57,840 Speaker 1: clause issue about tying the conditions to the to the 66 00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:00,360 Speaker 1: The complaint is primarily focused on that. It's bins out 67 00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:02,880 Speaker 1: into all sorts of different legal issues, but they're essentially 68 00:04:02,920 --> 00:04:05,640 Speaker 1: saying that the president doesn't have authority. There is one 69 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,200 Speaker 1: additional condition that is sort of interesting, one argument that 70 00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,440 Speaker 1: they're making. Although the condition only requires them to give 71 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:15,400 Speaker 1: forty eight hours notice, what Chicago pointed out is because 72 00:04:15,440 --> 00:04:19,000 Speaker 1: they operate mostly lockdowns, they don't cerate county prisons, uh, 73 00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:21,279 Speaker 1: they often don't hold people for more than forty eight hours. 74 00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,080 Speaker 1: People come in, they get booked, they go before an arrangement, 75 00:04:24,160 --> 00:04:26,520 Speaker 1: they might get released on bail. If they're required to 76 00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:29,520 Speaker 1: give for the eight hour notice, Chicago's arguing that requires 77 00:04:29,520 --> 00:04:31,839 Speaker 1: them to detain people for forty eight hours. And that 78 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:34,800 Speaker 1: itself may be unconstitutional. The city may not actually have 79 00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:37,279 Speaker 1: the constitutional power to do so. So they're saying that 80 00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:39,359 Speaker 1: if they were to follow the conditions, they may be 81 00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:42,600 Speaker 1: forced to violate the constitution, which they say would is 82 00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:46,480 Speaker 1: self be problematic. Is there is there a precedent from 83 00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:50,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court for that? That that argument? What's kind 84 00:04:50,520 --> 00:04:53,440 Speaker 1: of the best You mentioned the medicaid case when when 85 00:04:53,480 --> 00:05:00,000 Speaker 1: we were talking about, uh, the unconstitutional restrictions on federal funds. Uh. 86 00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:03,160 Speaker 1: But but that issue about essentially forcing them to do 87 00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:08,280 Speaker 1: something unconstitutional? Is there a precedent for that? Yeah, So 88 00:05:08,320 --> 00:05:11,400 Speaker 1: there's sort of two setsu presidents. More recently, there's been 89 00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:14,560 Speaker 1: a number of cases actually filed against counties primarily but 90 00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,680 Speaker 1: also some cities, uh, in which individuals have complied with 91 00:05:17,720 --> 00:05:20,599 Speaker 1: federal detainers. The federal government main mistake, they locked up 92 00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:23,520 Speaker 1: a United States citizen, and these counties ended up becoming 93 00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:26,760 Speaker 1: liable for the damages because it was ruled that they 94 00:05:26,760 --> 00:05:30,359 Speaker 1: had no independent power constitutional power to hold them. The 95 00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:32,479 Speaker 1: other set of president was actually interesting and it deals 96 00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:35,960 Speaker 1: with this whole sanctuary city debate um. Interesting enough from 97 00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:38,680 Speaker 1: a part of them perspective, Republicans and conservatives have been 98 00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:41,400 Speaker 1: very effective and arguing that states and cities cannot be 99 00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:44,120 Speaker 1: forced to carry out federal programs. It was mostly gun 100 00:05:44,160 --> 00:05:47,000 Speaker 1: control in the early set of cases, but those president 101 00:05:47,120 --> 00:05:50,280 Speaker 1: matters just as much here immigration and the federal responsibility. 102 00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:52,320 Speaker 1: It's a federal concern, and what states and cities are 103 00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:55,960 Speaker 1: arguing is, UH, that's your obligation. You can't force us 104 00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:58,440 Speaker 1: to do your job. Let me ask you sort of 105 00:05:58,760 --> 00:06:01,960 Speaker 1: a factual questions. So there have been four hundred and 106 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:07,640 Speaker 1: seventeen murders in Chicago this year. UM and the Trump 107 00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:12,279 Speaker 1: administration is making the case that UH, illegal immigration is 108 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:17,160 Speaker 1: part of the problem, that that is contributing to the 109 00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:20,559 Speaker 1: the huge number of murders in Chicago. Have you seen 110 00:06:20,720 --> 00:06:23,440 Speaker 1: evidence on that one way or another to to say 111 00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:27,080 Speaker 1: whether there is a link between uh, Chicago being a 112 00:06:27,120 --> 00:06:31,160 Speaker 1: sanctuary city and this crime problem. Uh, there's been very 113 00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:34,559 Speaker 1: little evidence suggests that UM and the comprehensive studies haven't 114 00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:39,159 Speaker 1: done UH tracking crime rate and sanctuary policies that found 115 00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:42,640 Speaker 1: very little connections. UH, in fact, some negative connections in 116 00:06:42,640 --> 00:06:44,640 Speaker 1: that regard as well. I think with these kind of 117 00:06:44,640 --> 00:06:48,080 Speaker 1: statistical analysis it's very hard to draw conclusion. But what 118 00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:49,960 Speaker 1: I think is clear is that no one really has 119 00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:52,760 Speaker 1: an answer, and the question is, uh, does the presidential 120 00:06:52,760 --> 00:06:55,919 Speaker 1: administration no better or does the city Chicago? Rick just 121 00:06:55,960 --> 00:06:58,679 Speaker 1: about thirty seconds left, But I'm interested to know whether 122 00:06:58,760 --> 00:07:02,159 Speaker 1: you see this as being a groundbreaking case, a case 123 00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:04,320 Speaker 1: where other cities might follow with their own lawsuits, a 124 00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:06,680 Speaker 1: case where ultimately it might make it up to the 125 00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:11,600 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. I think okay, My my general person is, 126 00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:13,440 Speaker 1: I think a lot of cities are going to jump 127 00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:15,960 Speaker 1: on the bandwagon if this starts going forward. In fact, 128 00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:18,640 Speaker 1: they have we mentioned the other injunction with regard to 129 00:07:18,640 --> 00:07:21,880 Speaker 1: penalties that were imposed. The second question whether actually get 130 00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:24,800 Speaker 1: up the Supreme Court not clear um, on the other hand, 131 00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:27,360 Speaker 1: is a very big political issue, and of course many 132 00:07:27,400 --> 00:07:29,720 Speaker 1: of those do end up the Supreme Court. But in 133 00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:32,400 Speaker 1: other ways, the legal issues they are dealing with aren't 134 00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:37,240 Speaker 1: necessarily novel. They are entirely sort of well trodden. These 135 00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:40,320 Speaker 1: are sort of established arguments. Uh, It's not entirely clear 136 00:07:40,360 --> 00:07:43,480 Speaker 1: they will raise such a complex and novel issue that 137 00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:46,560 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court may feel compelled to actually take it. Okay. 138 00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:48,440 Speaker 1: I want to thank our guest, Rick Sue, professor at 139 00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:50,920 Speaker 1: the University of Buffalo School of Law talking about Chicago's 140 00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:52,920 Speaker 1: lawsuit against the Trump administration.