Arizona vs. Maine

 

Following up on Professor Epstein’s excellent post about Judge Bolton’s opinion in the Arizona case, I’d like to pose a related, but different, question.

Professor Epstein concludes that the Administration is likely to win its case on federal pre-emption grounds. Would the pre-emption argument also work against states and cities with “sanctuary” policies? The State of Maine, for example, has a policy (imposed by the governor via executive order) that prohibits state employees from disclosing or even inquiring about a person’s immigration status. Isn’t there a credible argument that such a policy frustrates federal enforcement of immigration laws?

As a tactical matter, maybe this is a fight the Republicans don’t want, for fear of alienating hispanic voters. But as a legal matter, the argument seems sound to me.

There are 2 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MichaelTee

    With due respect Mr. Freedman, you would have to have federal enforcement of immigration laws.

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @AaronMiller

    Actually, whether or not the federal law is enforced wouldn’t matter, I’d bet. Regardless, the feds certainly don’t want to admit in a public trial that they’re not enforcing immigration laws.

    It’s an excellent question.

    • #2
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.