Christopher Peak file photo
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That’s the text of the 10th Amendment, which according to local immigration law experts is the basis for New Haven’s lawsuit against the Trump administration to protect its “welcoming city” status for undocumented immigrants.
The city joined the suit, brought by municipalities including San Francisco and Portland, on Feb. 7. It challenges a day-one executive order issued by President Donald Trump that instructed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pause and possibly cancel funds for cities that have“sanctuary” protections for immigrants.
Click here to read the lawsuit in full.
The lawsuit claims that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government is prohibited from “commandeering” state and local officials, including law enforcement, to help enforce federal law.
Two legal experts the Independent spoke with identified whether the Trump administration is attempting to “commandeer” New Haven city workers as the central dispute in the legal challenge.
“At the heart of the question is how much the federal government can impose its desired parts of immigration enforcement on the states,” Jon Bauer, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, said. “It really centers around questions of federalism.”
Bauer said that there is significant legal precedent supporting New Haven’s challenge, including several cases under the first Trump administration in which courts blocked his attempts to punish sanctuary cities.
He noted that city and state workers are not allowed under federal law to “impede” immigration enforcement actions — by barring the door to raids or deportations, for example. However, Bauer said courts have repeatedly found that the 10th Amendment protects states from having to assist in enforcement actions.
New Haven operates under a“Welcoming City” executive order that Mayor Justin Elicker signed in 2020. That order prohibits city employees from inquiring about someone’s immigration status, disclosing confidential information, or using city resources to assist in an investigation unless compelled by state or federal law. The city also does not coordinate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE).
Kica Matos, a New Haven-based national immigration rights advocate and president of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), described Trump’s executive order, titled“Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” as unconstitutional.
“This is a glaring example of the overreach and the disregard that this administration clearly has for the Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment bans the federal government from forcing states to enact its laws, and that’s exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do.”
Both attorneys predicted that New Haven would win the legal challenge. Matos described the executive order as an “obvious violation” of the 10th Amendment, and Bauer said he thinks the city is on “firm ground” legally.
The Department of Justice did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article and has not filed a response to the lawsuit, according to court records.
Defenders of the Trump administration’s orders centralizing power with the presidency have promoted the so-called “unitary executive theory,” which interprets the Constitution in such a way to bolster the president’s control over the shape, administration, and direction of government.
Bauer predicted that the DOJ will argue that the fact New Haven has “sanctuary” policies that prevent the city employees from actively cooperating with ICE, means the city is illegally harboring and shielding undocumented immigrants, which would be a violation of federal law.
“If a state official said, ‘ICE is coming, go out that secret back entrance so they won’t find you,’ that could be construed as concealing or harboring someone,” he said. “But just having a policy of not generally sharing information with federal authorities on certain subjects is really a stretch to say that’s concealing or harboring people”
Also at issue in the lawsuit is the threat that the DOJ will cut federal funds to New Haven, which Elicker has said would make the city less safe. According to the mayor, the city has received more than $6.4 million in DOJ grants in recent years, including for violence prevention programs and the COMPASS crisis response team.
Under the first Trump administration, Bauer noted there was some disagreement among federal appeals courts on the legality of the DOJ conditioning funds on compliance with immigration enforcement. The 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit (where New Haven’s lawsuit is being argued) both ruled that the DOJ could not withhold funds, while the 2nd Circuit ruled it could, albeit under narrow conditions for particular grant programs.
The law professor said the issue of conditioning funds would have to be sorted out in litigation, but that the “bulk of the precedent” indicated DOJ could not withhold grants.
Both Matos and Bauer emphasized that the reason the Trump administration is trying to, in their view, coerce cities like New Haven into assisting in immigration enforcement is that the federal government does not have the resources to carry out instant “mass deportations” without local collaboration.
“[Trump] has promised the nation that he will carry out the largest deportation effort in this nation’s history, and they do not have the people power to do that,” Matos said. “So this entire effort of coercion is about trying to see if they can carry out this mandate, relying on others to do it.”