The Supreme Court may soon be asked to revisit Justice Kennedy's 2012 majority opinion reaffirming federal primacy over immigration. Doing so could have implications far beyond the U.S.-Mexico border.
Thank you for the explanation of what the Supreme Court did and didn't do. More and more examples of Republicans who do not want the rule of law, who want to weaken and impoverish Federal laws while ushering in chaos. It's very clear that Republicans cannot govern and, therefore, want to get their positions implemented through minority rule power grabs. All of this in addition to them refusing to work together with Democrats to pass immigration legislation because Trump said not to cooperate. Make certain everyone you know is registered to vote and that they do vote in November. Take deep breaths, get plenty of rest and move forward on protecting democracy.
Doesn't the attempt by NY to use Trump's violation of federal law to bootstrap into a state law violation raise very similar issues? I mean, it certainly seems like the regulation of campaign financing for presedential elections is an area where congress has occupied the field.
So shouldn't the NY state bootstrapping stand or fall with the ability of states like Texas to use violation of federal immigration law in a similar fashion? In other words, pass a law saying any misdemeanor or citation (jay walking, littering etc) committed while present in the US in violation of federal law is now a serious felony?
Excellent summary (as usual - I admire your ability to churn out at a good clip consistently high quality analysis, both legal and historic).
This Texas situation is redolent of the 1820-1861 history of tensions leading to the Civil War. Governor Abbot's neo-Calhounist rhetoric has been as defiant as any exhibited by fire-breathing secessionists of that period. A difference is that we have no Websters or Lincolns to clarify the centrality of the Constitutional issues at stake. It is an incipient crisis that presents a very delicate issue for the sitting President, particularly given the extent of the passions and the disinformation/misinformation fog that have settled over immigration law and policy. No faithful president can permit local or state authorities to actively, by threat of force, interfere with execution of federal court orders or the carrying out by federal officials of their lawful functions. On the other hand, much of this is political hot air exhaust without overt action. There's no question that an Abbott or a Patrick or a Trump etc. can garner considerable public support form a citizenry not sensitive to the potential harm to the constitutional foundations of the Republic caused by the notion that a state my unilaterally determine the final content of federal policy on core, enumerated federal functions.
I've argued Supremacy Clause issues at all levels of the federal court system. In no other area of my practice and career do I feel that I have a profound debt to the earlier champions of preservation of the Union. I hope the absolutely wretched, hyper-ventilated political atmosphere of our time does not distort the outcome of this issue and that, to the extent these issues are reviewed by the Supreme Court, the Court can be unanimous or nearly so in issuing clear, durable reminders of why some subject matters must be left to the federal government and with clear authority to brush aside local or state impulses to displace federal control.
Thank you for the explanation of what the Supreme Court did and didn't do. More and more examples of Republicans who do not want the rule of law, who want to weaken and impoverish Federal laws while ushering in chaos. It's very clear that Republicans cannot govern and, therefore, want to get their positions implemented through minority rule power grabs. All of this in addition to them refusing to work together with Democrats to pass immigration legislation because Trump said not to cooperate. Make certain everyone you know is registered to vote and that they do vote in November. Take deep breaths, get plenty of rest and move forward on protecting democracy.
Doesn't the attempt by NY to use Trump's violation of federal law to bootstrap into a state law violation raise very similar issues? I mean, it certainly seems like the regulation of campaign financing for presedential elections is an area where congress has occupied the field.
So shouldn't the NY state bootstrapping stand or fall with the ability of states like Texas to use violation of federal immigration law in a similar fashion? In other words, pass a law saying any misdemeanor or citation (jay walking, littering etc) committed while present in the US in violation of federal law is now a serious felony?
Excellent summary (as usual - I admire your ability to churn out at a good clip consistently high quality analysis, both legal and historic).
This Texas situation is redolent of the 1820-1861 history of tensions leading to the Civil War. Governor Abbot's neo-Calhounist rhetoric has been as defiant as any exhibited by fire-breathing secessionists of that period. A difference is that we have no Websters or Lincolns to clarify the centrality of the Constitutional issues at stake. It is an incipient crisis that presents a very delicate issue for the sitting President, particularly given the extent of the passions and the disinformation/misinformation fog that have settled over immigration law and policy. No faithful president can permit local or state authorities to actively, by threat of force, interfere with execution of federal court orders or the carrying out by federal officials of their lawful functions. On the other hand, much of this is political hot air exhaust without overt action. There's no question that an Abbott or a Patrick or a Trump etc. can garner considerable public support form a citizenry not sensitive to the potential harm to the constitutional foundations of the Republic caused by the notion that a state my unilaterally determine the final content of federal policy on core, enumerated federal functions.
I've argued Supremacy Clause issues at all levels of the federal court system. In no other area of my practice and career do I feel that I have a profound debt to the earlier champions of preservation of the Union. I hope the absolutely wretched, hyper-ventilated political atmosphere of our time does not distort the outcome of this issue and that, to the extent these issues are reviewed by the Supreme Court, the Court can be unanimous or nearly so in issuing clear, durable reminders of why some subject matters must be left to the federal government and with clear authority to brush aside local or state impulses to displace federal control.