Illinois has joined California and Connecticut in barring federal immigration agents from conducting “civil arrests” of undocumented immigrants in or around state courthouses. This new sanctuary law appears largely symbolic and raises serious constitutional questions.
At the core of the issue is whether a state can restrict federal jurisdiction, especially after the Civil War. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has intensified rhetoric against ICE and the Trump administration for months, making comparisons to Nazis and warning that democracy is at risk. However, the new law crosses a constitutional line by not only limiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations but also establishing a 1,000-foot “buffer zone” around courthouses.
This law treats courthouses like churches, creating sanctuary zones where suspects can claim protection from civil arrest not only inside the building but also within 1,000 feet—unless ICE chooses to ignore the law altogether. Recently, the chief judge in Cook County issued a similar order, and some judges in other states have done the same.
### Legal Challenges and Constitutional Issues
The authority for these sanctuary orders is highly questionable. The federal government enforces laws mandating the arrest of certain individuals for immigration violations. These include mandatory detention of aliens removable due to criminal convictions or terrorism-related activities, as well as detention and removal of those with final deportation orders.
Illinois’ sanctuary law conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
> “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected efforts by states to interfere with federal immigration enforcement. In the 1952 case *Harisiades v. Shaughnessy*, the Court affirmed that the federal government has “exclusive” control over immigration policy.
Interestingly, former President Barack Obama once successfully challenged state laws that interfered with federal immigration enforcement. In the 2012 case *Arizona v. United States*, the Supreme Court ruled that:
> “[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
This federal authority dates back to the 19th century. In the 1893 case *Fong Yue Ting v. United States*, the Court held that Congress has the right to expel aliens of a particular class or allow them to remain, using all proper means to enforce the system.
### Additional Provisions and Implications
Illinois’ new law also creates the ability to sue federal authorities for false imprisonment under state law. Furthermore, the 1,000-foot buffer zone extends around any state court, effectively creating safe zones for undocumented immigrants.
This raises practical questions. For instance, could someone renting an apartment within such a zone claim effective immunity from civil arrest simply by residing there? Could suspects use public sidewalks or spaces within these zones to avoid federal enforcement?
Moreover, with states like Illinois pushing apps that track ICE operations, individuals might evade arrest by stepping into designated safe zones. It remains to be seen whether landlords will increase rents in these areas given the new “immunity” amenity.
If deemed constitutional, states could expand these safe zones beyond courthouses to include city services, clinics, and more, creating a patchwork of sanctuary areas that complicate federal enforcement.
Notably, similar tactics have been attempted by blue states to challenge Second Amendment rights, resulting in ongoing legal battles.
### Conclusion
Despite serious constitutional concerns, these sanctuary laws serve political purposes, allowing lawmakers to signal opposition to federal immigration policies. However, the legal weaknesses of the laws may lead to unintended consequences for individuals who mistakenly believe they are fully protected within these safe zones.
As legal challenges unfold, it remains uncertain how these laws will be enforced or whether courts will uphold them against federal authority.
—
*For more information, click here.*
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-why-blue-states-new-anti-ice-laws-unconstitutional-virtue-signaling
