DOJ Sues Colorado and Denver Over Immigration Enforcement, Citing Supremacy Clause
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has initiated legal action against the state of Colorado and the city of Denver, alleging that their policies interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The lawsuit, filed in the Colorado District Court, centers on the claim that Colorado and its most populous city have implemented what the DOJ characterizes as "sanctuary laws," thus violating the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. This clause asserts the federal government’s preeminent authority over matters of national importance, including immigration.
The DOJ’s argument rests on the principle that the United States possesses "well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate immigration matters." This authority, they contend, is being undermined by Colorado’s and Denver’s actions to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
"Sanctuary cities," the term at the heart of this legal dispute, generally refer to jurisdictions that aim to protect undocumented immigrants by limiting their cooperation with federal immigration officials in the enforcement of immigration laws. This can take various forms, such as restricting local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status or declining to hold individuals solely on immigration detainers.
The lawsuit emphasizes that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on the support of state and local officials to effectively enforce federal immigration laws across the country, particularly when conducting large-scale deportations. ICE often requests that police departments and sheriff’s offices flag individuals of interest and hold them until federal agents can take custody. The DOJ contends that Colorado’s and Denver’s "sanctuary policies" hinder this cooperation, thereby obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. The DOJ has previously filed similar lawsuits challenging "sanctuary policies" in other jurisdictions, including Rochester, New York, and Chicago, indicating a broader effort to push back against local policies that are perceived to impede federal immigration enforcement.
In a particularly striking claim, attorneys for the DOJ argue that Colorado’s "sanctuary policies" have contributed to a security crisis in Aurora, a Denver suburb. They assert that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) has exploited these policies to seize control of an apartment complex in the city. While local officials have refuted claims that the gang has taken over large areas of the city, dismissing them as exaggerated, they have acknowledged that the apartment complex was indeed "terrorized," with individuals linked to TdA involved.
The lawsuit names several prominent figures as defendants, including Colorado Governor Jared Polis, the state Legislature, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.
Governor Polis’s office has responded to the lawsuit by asserting that Colorado is not a sanctuary state and maintains regular cooperation with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. "If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid then we will follow the ruling," spokesperson Conor Cahill told The Associated Press. "We are not going to comment on the merits of the lawsuit."
The legal challenge in Colorado comes amid ongoing debates and political tensions surrounding immigration policies across the country. Republicans in Congress have actively sought to pressure officials in Democratic-led cities to cooperate with federal immigration policies, particularly those associated with the Trump administration’s agenda of mass deportations.
Republican lawmakers recently summoned the mayors of Denver, Boston, New York City, and Chicago to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, the mayors defended their cities as welcoming places, rejecting the notion that they are lawless and dangerous. Instead, they called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
The legal battle between the DOJ and Colorado and Denver is poised to have significant implications for the ongoing debate over federal versus local authority in immigration enforcement. The courts will need to weigh the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration matters against the rights of states and localities to set their own policies and priorities. The outcome of this lawsuit could potentially shape the landscape of immigration enforcement across the United States, impacting the relationship between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the lives of countless immigrants residing in these communities. The case will be closely watched by both sides of the political spectrum, as well as by advocates for immigrant rights and those concerned about national security. The final decision could have far reaching effects for years to come.
