A bill that would have expanded and bolstered Rochester’s “sanctuary city” status has been tabled, pending the results of a lawsuit the Trump administration filed against the city.
Rochester City Council members decided to put the legislation on hold this month after a closed-door session. The bill included provisions meant to protect undocumented immigrants and LGBTQ+ individuals from persecution and was proposed by the City Council’s progressive bloc.
“We're going to hold it pending our current litigation,” Council President Miguel Meléndez said, explaining that decision would be revisited after the lawsuit is resolved.
But that isn’t sitting well with advocates who pushed for the revisions.
“I think waiting for these lawsuits to kind of blow over is a cowardice decision,” said Mickey Di Perna of the Rochester Sexual and Reproductive Justice Task Force. “We were working on this bill for a long time, before Trump took office, before we were under any lawsuits. And I think that waiting any longer only harms our communities that are already going through so much.”
Rochester has been a sanctuary city since 1986. The policy specifies that the city and its employees are not to engage in immigration enforcement work, which is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. Rochester Police Department policy is that officers can respond to immigration enforcement scenes, but only to make sure things are safe and secure.
That policy came under fire from the Trump administration after a traffic stop in March on Whitney Street. Rochester police responded to an emergency call from federal immigration agents. After it did not appear there was any emergency, the officers proceeded to help remove the three men from the van immigration officers had pulled over, handcuffed them, and handed them over to the agents. The men, a father and two sons from Guatemala, were undocumented immigrants.
All 10 officers were briefly taken off duty for additional training.
The incident caught the attention of the Trump administration, prompting a visit to the Rochester Police Locust Club by Trump border czar Tom Homan. It also spurred a federal lawsuit by the Trump administration against the city.
The complaint argued that the city’s policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. That provision states that federal law is the supreme law of the land.
“The law and policies are an obstacle to the federal government’s enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminate against federal immigration enforcement,” the complaint reads.
That lawsuit is part of a spate of litigation the Trump administration has brought against sanctuary jurisdictions, with similar cases filed against the cities of Denver and Chicago, and, most recently, four cities in New Jersey.
Patrick Beath, the city’s top lawyer, responded to the litigation earlier this month. In the answer to the complaint, he referred to the original emergency call as a “sham” and wrote that the complaint is an attempt to conscript local police for federal purposes.
“In short, federal law enforcement agents at the scene unlawfully conscripted local police to engage in federal civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,” Beath wrote. “This suit represents the federal government’s formal ratification of the commandeering of local police to enforce federal immigration regulations and policy.”
City Councilmember Stanley Martin is one of the three sponsors of the bill to expand the sanctuary policy, alongside colleagues Mary Lupien and Kim Smith. Lupien is running for mayor in this month's Democratic primary against IT executive Shashi Sinha and incumbent Malik Evans.
The final bill introduced to Council gives the mayor the authority to discipline employees who violate the sanctuary policy — a tweak from the original proposal which gave City Council that authority, which the city’s legal counsel had advised was likely illegal.
"I disagree with the choice to hold it," Martin said, adding: "We did everything legal asked us to do, so there's no reason to hold it."
Martin acknowledged, however, that the legislation lacked the votes needed for approval.
Di Perna said he still thinks it's more critical now than ever to revisit the city’s sanctuary policy.
“I think it is so, so important for us not to just re-up our current policies, not just hold the line, but push back,” Di Perna said. “Push that line back and say, ‘Hey, no matter what Rochester will have the back of immigrants will have the back of our LGBTQ+ community, and make sure that our people are safe.’”
