NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: The SHIELD Act — Safeguarding Homeland Immigration Enforcement from Local Detention — would bar local police from arresting federal agents, a response to recent Democratic claims that state and local officials should be able to intervene.
Efforts from the left to stymie President Donald Trump’s “mass deportation” endeavor have often been tied up in court, such as when Obama-appointed Judge William Orrick threw cold water on a prior effort to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding.
On Friday, House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, will introduce the SHIELD Act, which he told Fox News Digital will “stand up for the rule of law and push back on far-left radicals by cutting off every federal dollar to any jurisdiction that obstructs or prosecutes our officers – even once – carrying out their critical security responsibilities.”
“I’m proud to lead the fight to support our federal officers and hold lawless politicians who undermine the safety and security of the United States fully accountable,” Arrington said.
DEM-BACKED ‘DIGNITY’ BILL COULD STRIP ICE OF DETENTION POWERS, ERASE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, CRITICS WARN
Similar efforts — including the Trump administration’s bid to penalize sanctuary cities that Orrick blocked — came from the executive branch, while Arrington’s proposal would create a new law.
“Any state or local leader who arrests federal agents for enforcing immigration law are abandoning the heart of constitutional order, aiding and abetting criminal illegal aliens, and fueling the perverse incentives that drive illegal immigration,” Arrington added.
In recent weeks, some Democrats pledged varied levels of interference with DHS operations.
EXCLUSIVE: PRITZKER CRITIC IN CONGRESS INTRODUCES BILL TO CRACKDOWN ON SANCTUARY STATES ‘GAMBLING WITH AMERICA
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson ordered the establishment of “ICE-Free Zones” in October, amid “Operation Midway Blitz” and DHS’ use of public spaces like a city-owned lot on Kedzie Avenue for staging.
“We will not tolerate ICE agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority,” Johnson said at the time.
“ICE agents are detaining elected officials, tear-gassing protestors, children, and Chicago police officers, and abusing Chicago residents,” he added, claiming his order reflects the Constitutional rights of immigrant communities.
ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS PASS BILL BANNING ICE IMMIGRATION ARRESTS NEAR COURTHOUSES
To the west, California lawmakers – some of whom were successful as plaintiffs in the Orrick case – suggested in recent weeks that local authorities may be able to detain federal officers during immigration operations.
Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Mullin, both Democrats from San Francisco, publicly backed that county’s top prosecutor after a New York Times report said she came up with an idea to prosecute problematic federal agents after-the-fact.
“I had lead-time to think about what authority I have and what I can do. This is something I felt very strongly about, and I had my office research it,” Brooke Jenkins told the paper.
LAWMAKER UNVEILS ‘ERIC ADAMS ACT’ THREATENING CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR SANCTUARY CITY MAYORS
In a statement, Pelosi and Mullin said that reports of potential Los Angeles-style raids in the Bay Area would be an “appalling abuse of law enforcement power.”
“It is important to note that California law protects communities and prevents federal agents from taking certain actions here that we have witnessed in other states.”
Pelosi, who represents most of San Francisco, and Mullin who represents a small slice of it along with Daly City and part of San Mateo, rebuked Trump’s supposed “absolute immunity; courtesy of the Supreme Court,” adding that agents in San Francisco would not enjoy that alleged benefit.
MAMDANI DECLARES HE’S READY FOR ‘ANY CONSEQUENCE’ FOR STANDING AGAINST TRUMP’S FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
“[I]f they break California law — and if they are convicted, the president cannot pardon them,” Pelosi and Mullin concluded.
Arrington’s bill would directly address San Francisco’s musings and potentially Illinois’ continued oppositional efforts.
A single instance of arresting, detaining, prosecuting or obstructing a federal immigration officer would trigger a full fiscal-year loss of federal financial assistance.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SUES LOS ANGELES OVER SANCTUARY POLICIES THAT ‘IMPEDE’ ICE OPERATIONS
The Justice Department would then only be able to restore federal funding if the municipality halts such behavior and attests to it in writing.
Legal experts agreed Arrington’s bill would stand up in court.
Holtzman-Vogel partner Elizabeth Foley — who previously worked for Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and later on Republicans’ legal challenge to ObamaCare — told Fox News Digital that Congress has already established this pattern by setting a nationwide 21-year-old drinking age, a policy that withholds portions of USDOT funding from states that drop below that threshold.
REPUBLICAN BILL WOULD PUT ‘ANARCHIST JURISDICTIONS’ ON NOTICE, THREATEN FEDERAL FUNDING
Differing drinking ages meant a 19-year-old from Allentown, Pennsylvania who could not drink in 1983 could cross the Delaware River into Phillipsburg, New Jersey and legally do so for two extra years.
Foley noted the Supreme Court upheld the Reagan administration policy in 1987’s Dakota v. Dole.
“Putting strings or conditions on the receipt of federal funds is common,” Foley said.
“Because Congress alone has the power of the purse, any conditions on the receipt of federal funds must be made unambiguously by Congress,” she said, noting that a president lacks that authority by itself – citing the Orrick case.
Fox News Digital reached out to Jenkins’ office as well as Johnson for any comment on the overall idea of withholding funding from their municipalities over their aversion to ICE enforcement.
Read the full article here
