City of Philadelphia v. Sessions
IRLI filed an important friend-of-the-court brief in Philadelphia v. Sessions, the first federal appeals court case to test a new open-borders legal theory that has been rearing its head in selected federal district courts across the country. The theory is that a key law passed by Congress requiring state and local governments not to interfere in federal immigration enforcement is unconstitutional – a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which says that states retain those powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution.
This supposed states’ right to interfere has been proclaimed by federal district courts in California, Chicago, and Philadelphia. These courts have all found that 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which forbids states and localities from telling their law enforcement officers not to share immigration-related information about persons in custody with federal authorities, unconstitutionally “commandeers” the states by telling them what laws they may have. So, according to the district court in this case, a key Philadelphia sanctuary policy – the one ordering city police to refuse to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the release dates of alien criminals in Philadelphia jails – is actually protected under the Constitution.
In response, IRLI argues in its brief that keeping federal officials in the dark about alien criminals’ release dates is rank interference with federal enforcement – for it thwarts ICE’s policy of detaining criminal aliens in the controlled environment of a local jail. Without release dates, ICE doesn’t know when to show up, and by law it may not detain aliens before their criminal sentences have been served. Indeed, without release dates, ICE often cannot determine whether a given alien is still in a given jail or not. For this reason, IRLI points out, refusing to share release dates with ICE constitutes “shielding” illegal aliens from detection, a crime under the federal anti-harboring statute.