Is Trump violating federalism in California?
I’m seeing quite a bit of media noise and commentary claiming that President Trump is violating federalism given the administration’s immigration enforcement actions in California. Much of this is related to Trump calling out the National Guard against the governor’s wishes, something that hasn’t happened since the Selma to Montgomery march in 1965.
Obviously, given California’s lawsuit against the administration, Constitutional questions will ultimately be decided by the courts, but there is little doubt the federal government has broad authority over issues of immigration, which has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Arizona v. United States. In 2012, Arizona lost their bid to enhance border security in their state and strengthen efforts to curtail illegal immigration during the Obama era. More recently, Texas has faced similar legal obstacles in its efforts to combat illegal immigration.
Part of federalism means the federal government has limited but clearly defined powers, immigration is one of them.
Of course, California local law enforcement and other governmental officials can decide how much it would like to cooperate with ICE (or not at all) but it’s generally understood that they can’t impede or nullify the enforcement of federal laws. In other words, there is still quite a bit of leeway for California to be a sanctuary state or Los Angeles remain a sanctuary city but the federal government can still have a prevailing interest. Likewise, the federal government can’t compel California to do their work for them, which is why they are there now.
A big part of California’s issue is at least some inability to maintain order in the streets, which is jeopardizing the safety of federal officials, not to mention all the other more general safety and property right concerns. Trump, at least so far, has exploited that to some degree.
One of the main principles we preach at American Habits is the importance of governing your local communities well and competently, while working to hold bad actors accountable. Strong local leadership is the first line of defense against federal intervention and overreach. I lived a long time in Mississippi—a state I love—but there were numerous instances where the federal government had to step in to investigate or prosecute corruption because local and state authorities were unwilling or unable to act. Federalism isn’t some kind of force field that dissolves responsibilities and accountability when it comes to the rule of law or public order.
People can disagree about the actions being taken but it seems like a significant leap to categorically claim that federalism is being violated. It’s quite clear so much of this nonsense would have been avoided if federal immigration law had been enforced over the last few decades, not to mention the missed opportunities by Congress at passing reforms and conducting actual oversight.
Below is a post from Reason highlighting Stanford Professor Michael McConnell who believes Trump, even if his actions aren’t prudent, has Constitutional authority to call out the National Guard.
Prof. Michael McConnell on the Constitution and the President’s Calling out the National Guard
In MSNBC, Law Professor Rachel E. VanLandingham at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles suggests Trump’s actions are “lawful,” while simultaneously calling it “a dangerous precedent in the abuse of the armed forces for political ends.”
—Ray Nothstine
— The Federalism Beat