I believe we are finally going to get the showdown we have been waiting for regarding sanctuary cities and their legality.
During Donald Trump’s first term, his administration took the issue to court, but the effort was far too late to be meaningful, and the case at issue was eventually dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, however, Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued a threat to cut funding to sanctuary cities, a move that is being challenged by Democrats. This surely means that litigation over the question will be rebooted and wind up before the nation's highest court, and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, in particular, just dared the administration to come after her.
Toward the end of Trump’s first term, Wilkinson v. City and County of San Francisco was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The petition lingered in limbo to the point that a motion was filed with the Court to request a delay of any decision until the Biden administration could take over and decide how it would handle the case.
Eventually, the Department of Justice asked the Court to dismiss the case, citing Rule 46.1, which calls for a matter to be dismissed without the justices' permission if both sides agree.
Liberals took this as a win for sanctuary cities, but this was more or less kicking the can down the road. There was no firm ruling issued, just a dismissal, allowing the issue of the legality of sanctuary cities to remain unresolved.
Bondi filed a suit against New York regarding sanctuary cities not long after taking her post in the second Trump administration, and earlier this month, she put all sanctuary jurisdictions on notice.
The AG stated, "But I just sent sanctuary city letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, ‘you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren't, we're going to come after you.’ And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let's see who responds and how they respond."
In virtually every Supreme Court ruling on immigration, the Court has ruled that questions in this realm are federal issues, save for very few exceptions (such as Texas winning a suit largely because the federal government was not doing its job to enforce immigration laws).
I have been waiting for this question to be decided in court for more than a decade, and I have to think we are finally going to see that happen, especially after a move made by Wu.
Wu is a bit of an enigma. I say this because her most recent approval ratings were at 65%, yet when I was in Boston earlier this year, I did not speak to a single person who supports her right now.
Keeping that in mind, Wu pushed back against possible funding cuts triggered by her immigration stance, stating, "At a time when this federal administration is already causing so much fear and harm in our communities, these threats are serious and consequential.”
She concluded her speech, "This has always been a city of revolution, of innovation, of standing up for the public good and never bowing down to tyranny. With me today, our fellow public servants and veterans, public safety and faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and labor union members, teachers and business owners, entrepreneurs and artists, youth and seniors."
As far as I can tell, Wu was the only mayor of a targeted city to respond to Bondi, so there is definitely going to be a showdown between this administration and sanctuary cities. The moment the first tranche of funding is withheld, a suit will be filed, and the Supreme Court will have no choice but to finally issue a ruling on this to decide once and for all whether cities such as Boston can blatantly ignore our immigration laws.
