The city of Somerville prides itself on being one of many “sanctuary cities” across the nation. These municipalities limit their cooperation with the federal government on immigration enforcement. Somerville is suing the Trump administration for withholding federal funding to encourage compliance with its immigration prerogatives. Sanctuary city policies have many benefits, and they are based on valid reasoning. However, many legal experts believe that hindering ICE through sanctuary city policies is unlawful.
Legal precedent indeed renders Trump’s funding threats unconstitutional. In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court reinforced the anti-commandeering doctrine, which declares that the federal government cannot coerce states to enforce federal programs and laws.
The federal government can still check the states’ authority despite the court’s precedent. In South Dakota v. Dole (1984), Congress wanted South Dakota to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 or lose 10% of federal highway funding. The court ruled that Congress could attach conditions to state funding. The “Dole Test” for government spending specifies that the government must pursue a goal beneficial to the public or national interest, and withholding funds must not be coercive. Even though it pertains to congressional spending (not the executive branch releasing funds), the Dole Test sets a framework for cutting funds to discourage dangerous policies.
Funding cuts are merely the mechanism of enforcement against the actual problem: sanctuary cities’ nullification of federal law. 8 U.S. Code § 1373 states that a local official cannot prevent the sharing of immigration and citizenship status with ICE. In 2024, Somerville issued the “Reaffirmation of Sanctuary City Resolution” and requested “that no city department apply for or accept federal funds that require gathering or sharing information regarding the national origin, immigration, or citizenship status of employees, students, or residents for the purpose of targeting or deportation.” If the government denies funds to sanctuary cities that withhold information required by section 1373, then these cities have no basis to call the restriction of funds unconstitutional. Somerville made a written commitment to not accept funds contingent upon providing the required immigration information.
Additionally, in Arizona v. U.S. (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot make immigration laws that interfere with federal enforcement. Somerville is de facto nullifying the law by refusing to follow it.
Apart from the legal basis for obeying federal immigration law, Somerville must also consider the longstanding tradition of cooperation with federal law enforcement, such as the FBI. The city rejects requests from ICE to hold illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, releasing those who have made bail before ICE can apprehend them. While local police departments do not need to accept “immigration detainers” from ICE, they would only have to hold the illegal alien for a maximum of 48 hours. Somerville is thus actively trying to undermine the authority of federal law enforcement.
Immigrants are America’s backbone, and I am proud to live in a country that accepts the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Through legal immigration, America should be a haven for those who hope for freedom and prosperity.
The scope of the federal government’s ability to pressure municipalities to cooperate with immigration enforcement is debatable. However, under no circumstance can municipalities refuse to share information with ICE, essentially nullifying a federal law. When individuals commit federal crimes, municipalities almost always cooperate with the FBI. Why is it different from immigration and ICE? Based on this legal argument, Somerville should comply with federal immigration enforcement.
Photo by TJ Reiter