State lawmakers, the governor and Denver’s mayor all have a message for the Trump administration: immigration enforcement is not our problem.
The three government entities, all of which are being sued by the federal government, said in separate motions to dismiss this week that they have duties to govern and create state and local laws, even if the federal government finds those laws objectionable.
They also said they have the power to restrict state-supported law enforcement from cooperating with immigration officials.
At issue for the Trump administration are a handful of Colorado statutes that specifically prohibit officials from sharing certain identifying information with federal immigration authorities, as well as forbidding local and state law enforcement from helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with immigration arrests and detentions. Specifically, Colorado’s laws ban law enforcement from holding people in jail for longer than their sentences or after they’ve posted a bond.
“Refusing to assist with the federal government’s regulatory aims does not constitute obstruction,” the city of Denver’s filing said. “Plaintiff essentially complains Denver is not as helpful as Plaintiff would like, but refusing to help is not the same as impeding … The sanctuary policies do not pose an obstacle.”
Colorado is among a handful of states the administration has sued for its so-called sanctuary policies.
State officials said in their filing that drawing bright lines between state work and the federal government’s work is expressly guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment. It’s just 28 words long, but it ensures that powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution should belong to the states or the people, unless specifically prohibited by that same Constitution.
“The doctrine preserves the balance of power between the federal government and the states,” lawyers wrote. “It promotes political accountability by clarifying whether state or federal actors are responsible for regulatory programs and prevents the federal government from shifting the costs of regulation to the states.”
They also argued that if the state’s law enforcement officials fell into line at the request of the federal government, it would violate the “anticommandeering principle,” which prohibits the federal government from forcing states to administer or enforce federal regulatory obligations.
State lawyers also dismiss one of the themes of the initial Trump v. Colorado filing: that the federal government needs local law enforcement help to rein in what they describe with little evidence as an out-of-control Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
“This lawsuit is premised on a false story,” the state’s motion to dismiss said. “No terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, seized control of part of Aurora, let alone as a direct byproduct of sanctuary policies. This is a court of law, not a political rally. Colorado follows the law and does not obstruct the federal government’s lawful actions.”
The Colorado General Assembly, sued as a collective for passing a number of the laws found objectionable by the U.S. Department of Justice, said in their filing that they have the right and the duty to pass state laws as they see fit for the people who elected them.
“The theme throughout the United States’ (arguments) is that it has the right, even without clear Congressional authorization, to compel the State of Colorado and directly conscript its officers, employees and most alarmingly its own legislature to participate in such manner as the federal executive branch may direct,” lawyers for the state legislature wrote. “The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
Colorado still works with federal agents on criminal matters, but immigration enforcement is largely a civil matter ending in deportation, not criminal charges. And contrary to the federal government’s complaints, Colorado and its cities and counties still respond to requests from immigration agents, including telling them when inmates they inquire about are going to be released. It’s up to the federal government to then be at the jail for that release.
The federal government has a month to respond to the motions to dismiss and the case continues in Colorado District Court.
| This story is part of a collection tracking the impacts of President Donald Trump’s second administration on the lives of everyday Coloradans. Since taking office, Trump has overhauled nearly every aspect of the federal government; journalists from CPR News, KRCC and Denverite are staying on top of what that means for you. Read more here. |
