The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in federal court against the city of Rochester seeking to block its Sanctuary City policy.
The complaint stems from a high-profile incident last month, during which Rochester police officers responded to an emergency call for assistance from federal immigration enforcement officers.
The RPD officers could be seen in body-worn camera footage apparently assisting the immigration officers with an arrest. It shows RPD officers taking control of the scene, helping to remove three men from a vehicle, and handcuffing them.
Mayor Malik Evans and Chief David Smith held a news conference calling out the actions of the officers in assisting the agents with taking the men into custody as an apparent violation of city policy and internal police department policy. Both forbid Rochester police from assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
Smith has said he saw no emergency that required the officers' intervention.
Ten officers were taken off the street for additional training following the incident. All returned to their regular duties several days later.
The DOJ's complaint specifically names Evans and Rochester City Council President Miguel Melendez and makes three claims against the city. It argues that the city’s policy discriminates against federal law enforcement, unlawfully limits the sharing of information regarding immigration status, and restricts federal immigration action by not cooperating with civil detainers and warrants.
“Rochester’s Sanctuary City laws and policies are illegal,” the complaint reads. “Those laws and policies are designed to and in fact do interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”
Rochester has been a Sanctuary City since 1986, but City Council adopted an updated resolution in 2017. The local law limits the city’s cooperation with immigration enforcement, but it does not prohibit Rochester police from responding to emergencies called in by federal immigration officers, nor does it prevent federal immigration enforcement from operating in the city.
The complaint's arguments center around the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution — in simple terms the clause establishes federal law as the "supreme law of the land."
That legal tack is consistent with other messages put out by the administration of President Donald Trump.
For example, a January memo from the U.S. Deputy Attorney General’s office argues the Supremacy Clause circumvents all state and local laws regarding immigration.
“The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the executive branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives,” the memo reads. “Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.”
Immigration enforcement is solely a responsibility of the federal government. The legal basis for sanctuary cities is rooted in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and what's known as its anti-commandeering doctrine. That doctrine holds that the federal government cannot compel states to enact or administer federal regulatory programs.
The complaint’s filing comes shortly after a federal judge blocked another effort by the Trump administration to compel sanctuary cities to comply with immigration enforcement. On Thursday, Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled the administration’s attempt to block federal funding to 16 sanctuary cities and counties was likely unconstitutional.
On his first day in office, Trump signed executive orders intended to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding. The orders were dubbed “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.”
Orrick, an Obama-era appointee, had blocked a similar proposal during the first Trump administration.
“Here we are again,” Orrick wrote, in his decision.
Mayor Malik Evans has been adamant that the city is in compliance with all federal laws. In a joint statement from Evans and Melendez, issued Friday, he said the city has not yet been served the complaint, but he did review the filing Friday.
“On its face, the complaint is an exercise in political theater, not legal practice,” the statement reads. “The City’s Sanctuary City policy is legally sound and always has been—including during the entirety of the Trump Administration’s first term. The City fully intends to defend the legality of its policies, and to use this opportunity to hold the federal government to task and ensure that it does not commandeer local resources in violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.”
The complaint is seeking permanent injunctions barring the Rochester officials from enforcing sanctuary city policies.
