
In a robust showing of federalism, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, joined by a coalition of attorneys general from twelve other states including California, New York, and Massachusetts, has drawn a legal line in the sand against federal overreach on immigration enforcement. The group released a statement directly challenging a memo from a Trump-era Department of Justice appointee that seemingly attempts to compel state and local law enforcement into the federal immigration enforcement fold. This move, they contend, is constitutionally out of bounds.
The joint statement, emanating from a chorus of like-minded states, points to the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States to support their stance. Given, the federal government bears the right to manage its immigration enforcement strategies; the states are not to be "impressed into its service," to shoulder these federal responsibilities, particularly not at their own expense.
Amid tension over immigration policy enforcement, the statement asserted, "It is well-established — through longstanding Supreme Court precedent — that the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from commandeering states to enforce federal laws." AG Brown and his counterparts are pushing back against what they perceive as presidential overreach, affirming their commitment to the tenets of federalism that dictate this separation of powers.
Furthermore, the attorney generals are standing firm on the notion that this presidential memo is, at present, without substance: "Right now, these vague threats are just that: empty words on paper," as stated on the Washington State Office of the Attorney General official website. Yet, they vowed that should these threats materialize into something more concrete and legally dubious, a concerted response would not be far behind. The essence of the coalition's message is clear – while they are steadfast in prosecuting crimes regardless of an individual's immigration status, they will not let federal mandates dictate how they execute their state law enforcement duties. They seek to maintain that delicate balance that allows them to build trust within the communities they serve.
With a watchful eye on Washington, the consensus among these attorneys general is undeniable – states possess specific rights that the federal government must respect. Enforcement of state laws falls squarely within their domain, and any attempt at commandeering state resources to serve federal ends, particularly those pertaining to a doctrine of mass deportation, will encounter firm resistance. This coalition of states upholds their ultimate responsibility to their constituents, committed to a vision of law enforcement working in tandem with community, not as agents of a distant federal agenda.