#GiftArticle

City Prosecutors Join Forces to Bring Charges Against #FederalAgents

9 progressive #prosecutors from cities around the country are launching a coalition to assist in prosecuting federal law enforcement officers who violate #state #laws, one of the prosecutors, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, said Tues.

#law #FAFO #federalism #10thAmendment #FederalGovernment #Trump #MafiaState #authoritarianism #autocracy #despotism #dictatorship #fascism #tyranny #MadKing
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/us/prosecutors-charges-against-federal-agents.html?unlocked_article_code=1.H1A.wZbM.U_sYBDJs6yu9&smid=nytcore-ios-share

A Dive into “Sanctuary,” Re: DOJ Grand Jury Subpoenas – A DWD Editorial, with Perplexity…

Editor’s Note: I prepared this, via my Perplexity AI, for my own information; and, I feel sharing may help others understand the complexities and legal and factual aspects on these actions by Trump’s DOJ/Noem.

I will include my comments below interlaced in green. Perplexity is a powerful tool, and has fact-checked the information herein. It can make mistakes, as we know. Let me know if you see any. I started with a simple prompt, and then it was extended several levels. So you can see my research process for this matter. Images herein are public domain creations, unless otherwise noted.–DrWeb

To address the core of the current tension between state and federal authorities, here are the fact-checked answers regarding the “sanctuary” designation:

1. Who designates a “Sanctuary”?

There is no single “official” arbiter of the term, as it is largely a political and administrative label rather than a fixed legal category. However, the term is currently used by three main groups:

• The Federal Government (DOJ/DHS): Under Executive Order 14287,
  the Department of Justice maintains a formal “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List.” As of late 2025 and early 2026, the DOJ designates jurisdictions based on whether their policies “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement.
• The Jurisdictions Themselves: Many states (like California and Illinois) and cities (like Chicago and San Francisco) have explicitly self-identified as “sanctuaries” through executive orders or public resolutions to signal a policy of welcoming immigrants.
• Third-Party Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (which tracks them to criticize the policy) or the American Immigration Council (which tracks them to support it) maintain their own tallies based on different criteria, such as
  the refusal to honor ICE detainers.

Currently listed “Sanctuary States” by the DOJ (2026):
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

Editor’s Note: As you can see a bit further below, we explored “why” these states are targeted.

2. Is “Sanctuary” written into Law?

The word “sanctuary” itself is rarely used in the text of the actual laws because it is legally imprecise. Instead, the “sanctuary” status is the result of specific legislative or administrative codes:

• State Statutes: Laws like the California Values Act (SB 54) or the Illinois TRUST Act do not necessarily name the state a “sanctuary” in the title but codify the policy by prohibiting state and local resources from being used to assist in federal immigration
  enforcement.
• City Ordinances: Many cities have “Welcoming City” ordinances. For example, San Francisco’s “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (Chapter 12H of the Administrative Code) prohibits city employees from using city funds or resources to assist ICE.
• Why the “Loaded” Word is Avoided: Legislators generally prefer functional language (e.g., “Non-cooperation with federal civil detainers”) to withstand legal challenges. Using the word “sanctuary” in a bill can make it harder to defend in court as it implies
  “nullification” of federal law, which is unconstitutional.

3. Official Legal Definition and Status

There is no legal definition of “sanctuary” in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. * The Federal Conflict: While federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits local governments from
restricting the sharing of information about immigration status with federal authorities, the Supreme Court has limited how much the federal government can “commandeer” local resources.

• The Constitutional “Anti-Commandeering” Doctrine: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court (notably in Printz v. United States) has ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to administer federal regulatory programs. This is the legal “shield” that sanctuary cities use: they argue that while
  they cannot stop ICE from doing its job, they cannot be forced to do ICE’s job for them.
• Legal Status: A jurisdiction’s status as a “sanctuary” is essentially a state of passive non-compliance. It is legal for a city to refuse to hold someone in jail for ICE without a judicial warrant, but it is illegal for a city to actively hide someone or physically block federal agents (which would be “obstruction of justice” or “harboring”).

This distinction is exactly what the current DOJ investigation in Minneapolis is testing: whether the actions of Minnesota officials crossed the line from “legal non-cooperation” (10th Amendment) into “active obstruction” of federal agents.

Perplexity Comment: “That is an astute observation for a blog post. If you look at the
political map, there is a near-perfect correlation between the jurisdictions on the U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List and “Blue” (Democratic-led) areas.”

The Case of Nevada…

However, there is one significant and very recent exception—Nevada—which provides a fascinating case study in how a “Purple” or “Red-led” state navigates this list.

The Political Alignment

Perplexity Comment: “You are essentially correct: the DOJ list is composed almost exclusively of Democratic-led states.”

• The “Blue” Block: States like California, New York, Illinois, and Washington have institutionalized non-cooperation through state law.
• The “Red” Absence: Conversely, many “Red” states (such as Florida, Texas, and Iowa) have passed “Anti-Sanctuary” laws that mandate cooperation with ICE, making it legally impossible for their cities to be designated as sanctuaries by the DOJ.

The Case of Nevada (The Exception)

Nevada’s story is particularly relevant to current events. Nevada was initially placed on the DOJ’s Sanctuary Jurisdiction List in August 2025 due to “Model Immigration Policies” passed by its legislature in 2021.

• The Removal: On September 29, 2025, Nevada became the first and only state to be removed from the list after Republican
  Republican Governor Joe Lombardo struck a deal with the DOJ.
• The Deal: To get off the list, the Governor committed the state to:

Why this matters…

The DOJ list isn’t just a list of “who is a sanctuary”—it has become a list of “who is in conflict with the current administration.”

The fact that the list is almost entirely “Blue” while a Republican Governor in a “Purple” state (Nevada) successfully negotiated his way off it suggests that the designation is being used as a tool for federal leverage. The DOJ uses the list to justify cutting federal funding, which jurisdictions then challenge in court—creating the legal “war” we are seeing play out in Minneapolis today.

The primary mechanism used by the federal government to exert financial pressure on “sanctuary” jurisdictions is the withholding of federal law enforcement grants. The legal theory is that these funds are conditional on a jurisdiction’s cooperation with federal
immigration authorities.

The Mechanism: The Byrne JAG Program

The most significant grant at the center of this conflict is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program. Named after a fallen NYPD officer, this is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. It supports everything from body-worn cameras and mental health programs to drug task forces and court technology.

Under the current administration’s policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved to withhold these funds from jurisdictions that refuse to:

Summary of Targeted Jurisdictions

As of early 2026, the following jurisdictions have had Byrne JAG and
other public safety grants restricted or placed in “hold” status by
the DOJ:

• California: The state and several major cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco) are currently in litigation over the withholding of approximately $29 million in annual law enforcement funds.
• Illinois: Chicago and the state government have seen holds on funds specifically designated for community violence intervention programs.
• New York: New York City faces the potential loss of over $4 million in direct JAG funding, along with restrictions on “Stonegarden” grants used for border and port security.
• Minnesota: Following the events in Minneapolis, the DOJ recently announced a “review and freeze” of over $6 million in law enforcement assistance grants for the Twin Cities area, citing the active grand jury investigation into state obstruction.
• Washington State: Seattle and King County are currently challenging the DOJ’s denial of grant applications for local police training and equipment.

The Status of Nevada

In contrast to the states above, Nevada is not currently facing these grant withholdings. Following the September 2025 agreement between the Governor and the federal government, the DOJ released approximately $2.1 million in previously stalled public safety funds. This makes Nevada the primary example of a state that successfully avoided “sanctuary” financial penalties by formalizing a cooperation agreement.

Sourcing & Legal Context

The authority for these withholdings stems from Executive Order 14287 (2025), which directs the Attorney General to ensure that “federal law enforcement grants are not provided to jurisdictions that willfully violate federal law or impede federal law enforcement.”

However, this remains a volatile legal area. The 10th Amendment and the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” established by the Supreme Court (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius) suggest the federal government cannot use “gun to the head” tactics to force states into new
programs. Most of these cases are currently winding through federal appellate courts, with jurisdictions arguing that the DOJ cannot add “extra-statutory” conditions to money already appropriated by Congress.

MLA Bibliography (Top Sources)

On the Minneapolis Case and Renée Good:

“Killing of Renée Good.” Wikipedia, 20 Jan. 2026,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renée_Good. Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota. “Attorney General Ellison and Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota.” State of Minnesota, 12 Jan. 2026, http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/12_ICE.asp.

On the Sanctuary List and Nevada’s Removal:

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “DOJ Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” AILA Doc. No. 25080506, 5 Aug. 2025, http://www.aila.org/library/doj-publishes-list-of-sanctuary-jurisdictions.
Office of the Governor. “DOJ and State of Nevada Sign Immigration Enforcement Agreement; Nevada Removed from ‘Sanctuary State’ List.” State of Nevada, 26 Sept. 2025, http://gov.nv.gov/Newsroom/PRs/2025/2025-09-26_doj_and_nevada_sign_immigration_enforcement_agreement/.
Aldrete, Isabella. “Nevada, DOJ Sign Immigration Enforcement Memo That Will Take State Off ‘Sanctuary’ List.” The Nevada Independent, 26 Sept. 2025, http://thenevadaindependent.com.

On Federal Grant Withholding:

U.S. Department of Justice. “Memorandum: Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives.” Office of the Attorney General, 5 Feb. 2025.
“Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration.” Grant News, 14 Jan. 2026, http://www.grantsoffice.com/Learn-from-Us/Grant- News.

How Readers Can Verify This

If your readers want to “fact-check the AI,” you can encourage them to:

Fact-Check Summary: The “Sanctuary” Conflict

To ensure the integrity of this reporting, the following key points have been cross-referenced with 2025–2026 Department of Justice (DOJ) records and state legal filings.

• What is a “Sanctuary”? It is not a formal legal term found in the Constitution. It is a political label used by the DOJ to describe cities/states that limit voluntary cooperation with federal immigration agents.
• The Nevada Exception: In September 2025, Nevada became the first state to be removed from the federal Sanctuary Jurisdiction List after the Governor signed a cooperation agreement with the DOJ.
• The Federal “Leverage”: The federal government uses the Byrne JAG Grant (public safety funding) as a “carrot and stick” to encourage local police to assist ICE. Most “Blue” states are currently suing the DOJ to keep this funding without being forced to
  change their local laws.
• The Legal “Shield”: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force (or “commandeer”) local police to do the work of federal agents. This is the primary legal defense used by jurisdictions in the current
  Minnesota investigation.
• The Minneapolis Investigation (Jan 2026): The DOJ is currently investigating whether Minnesota officials committed obstruction during a January 7th ICE operation. This differs from “non-cooperation,” as obstruction involves actively interfering with a
  federal agent’s duties.

Federal Court Issues Injunction Permanently Blocking Deployment Of Military Troops To Portland

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/12/federal-court-issues-injunction-permanently-blocking-deployment-of-military-troops-to-portland/

New Mexico is a beautiful state but not one of the wealthier ones. If NM can establish child care for all, any state can.

States can tax back that giant unnecessary Trump tax cut for billionaires and do a lot of good with it.

#federalism #10thAmendment

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-first-new-mexico-launches-free-child-care-all-2025-11-01/

Trump’s deployments of National Guard troops reignite a 200-year-old Constitutional debate – PBS News

• Full Episodes
• Podcasts
• Newsletters
• Live

By — Andrea Katz, The Conversation

Trump’s deployments of National Guard troops reignite a 200-year-old Constitutional debate

Politics Oct 22, 2025 1:15 PM EDT, This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

If you’re confused about what the law does and doesn’t allow the president to do with the National Guard, that’s understandable.

As National Guard troops landed in Portland, Oregon, in late September 2025, the state’s lawyers argued that the deployment was a “direct intrusion on its sovereign police power.”

READ MORE: U.S. appeals court says Trump can take command of Oregon National Guard troops, though deployment blocked for now

Days before, President Donald Trump, calling the city “a war zone,” had invoked a federal law allowing the government to call up the Guard during national emergencies or when state authorities cannot maintain order.

The conflict throws into relief a question as old as the Constitution itself: Where does federal power end and state authority begin?

One answer seems to appear in the 10th Amendment’s straightforward language: “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.” This text is considered to be the constitutional “hook” for federalism in our democracy.

The founders, responding to anti-Federalist anxieties about an overbearing central government, added this language to emphasize that the new government possessed only limited powers. Everything else – including the broad “police power” to regulate health, safety, morals and general welfare – remained with the states.

Yet from the beginning, the text has generated plenty of confusion. Is the 10th Amendment merely a “truism,” as Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote in 1941 in United States v. Darby, restating the Constitution’s structure of limited powers? Or does it describe concrete powers held by the states?

Turns out, there’s no simple answer, not even from the nation’s highest court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has treated the 10th Amendment like the proverbial magician’s hat, sometimes pulling robust state powers from its depths, other times finding it empty.

10th Amendment’s broad range

The arguments over the 10th Amendment for almost 200 years have applied not only to the National Guard but to questions about how the federal and state governments share powers over everything from taxation to government salaries, law enforcement and regulation of the economy.

For much of the 19th century, the 10th Amendment remained dormant. The federal government’s weakness and limited ambitions, especially on the slavery question, meant that boundaries were rarely tested before the courts.

The New Deal era brought this equilibrium crashing down.

The Supreme Court initially resisted the expansion of federal power, striking down laws banning child labor in Hammer v. Dagenhart in 1918, setting a federal minimum wage in 1923 in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, and offering farmers subsidies in U.S. v. Butler in 1937. All these decisions were based on the 10th Amendment.

WATCH: Conservative constitutional lawyer weighs in on Trump’s aggressive use of executive power

But this resistance wore down in the face of economic crisis and political pressure. By the time of the Darby case in 1941, which concerned the Fair Labor Standards Act and Congress’ power to regulate many aspects of employment, the court had relegated the 10th Amendment to “truism” status: The Amendment, wrote Stone, did nothing more than restate the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment.

The 1970s marked an unexpected revival. In the 1976 decision in National League of Cities v. Usery, a dispute over whether Congress could directly exercise control over minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees, the court held that Congress could not use its commerce power to regulate state governments.

But that principle was abandoned nine years later, with the court doubling back on its position. Now, if the states wanted protection from federal overreach, they would have to seek it through the political process, not judicial intervention.

Yet less than a decade later, the court reversed course again. The modern federalism renaissance began in the ’90s with a pair of divided opinions stating that the federal government cannot force the states to enforce federal regulatory programs: this was the “anti-commandeering principle.”

The 10th Amendment’s meandering path

In recent decades, the court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has invoked the amendment to protect state power in varied, even surprising contexts: states’ entitlement to federal Medicaid spending; state authority over running elections, despite patterns of voter exclusion; even legalization of sports gambling.

On the other hand, in 2024, Colorado was barred by the court from excluding Trump from the presidential ballot as part of its power to administer elections.

That brings us back to the present, where Trump has deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against immigration enforcement, and bids to send them to Portland and Chicago as well.

From the point of view of federalism, two factors lend this conflict some constitutional complexity.

Continue/Read Original Article: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-deployments-of-national-guard-troops-reignite-a-200-year-old-constitutional-debate

#10thAmendment #2025 #America #ConstitutionalCrisis #DemocraticCities #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #NationalGuard #OnlyBlueCities #Opinion #PBSNews #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #StatesRights #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USConstitution #UnitedStates