Congress\u2019s crackdown on sanctuary cities comes with a strong sense of d\u00e9j\u00e0-vu.<\/p>\n
Back in 1996, lawmakers directed cities to comply with U.S. immigration laws, \u201cnotwithstanding any other provision of \u2026 state or local law \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
Yet sanctuary cities have flourished under Congress\u2019s nose for the past 21 years.<\/p>\n
Last week, the House repeated the verbiage in its \u201cNo Sanctuary for Criminals Act\u201d<\/a> (HR 3003).<\/p>\n Washington\u2019s latest foray against sanctuary cities raises the stakes by threatening to withhold federal funding from non-compliant cities and states. One analysis estimates that the sanctuary jurisdictions of New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle could lose a combined $4.448 billion<\/a> under HR 3003.<\/p>\n But any fiscal hit presupposes: 1) the Senate will pass the House bill and, 2) the law survives inevitable court challenges. With judges blocking President Donald Trump\u2019s earlier effort to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities<\/a>, does HR 3003 provide enough legal ammunition? Though Congress has clear constitutional authority over appropriation of funds, such facts have not always deterred activist judges.<\/p>\n Unwilling to wait around, Texas enacted Senate Bill 4 to strip sanctuary cities of state law-enforcement funds and<\/em> hold local officials liable for non-compliance. SB 4 does not recognize localities\u2019 right to flout state law.<\/p>\n