The statement issued by the eleven Democratic state attorneys general strongly pushes back against what they see as vague and potentially illegal threats from the Trump administration regarding immigration enforcement.
By focusing on possible federal prosecution for non-compliance with immigration policies, including mass deportations, the attorneys general assert that federal attempts to enforce such policies at the local level violate the U.S. Constitution, particularly in terms of the autonomy of states and their right to refuse to participate in federal actions they deem unconstitutional.
Their reference to the Printz v. United States case highlights that the federal government cannot compel state or local authorities to carry out federal mandates, reinforcing their stance that states should not be forced into federal immigration enforcement roles.
The attorneys general criticize the Trump administration for using the Department of Justice as a tool for prosecuting officials who resist these policies, calling it an overreach that undermines trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
The statement warns that while these threats are currently viewed as “empty words on paper,” the states are prepared to challenge any legal action taken against them.
This ongoing legal and political conflict exemplifies the broader national debate on immigration enforcement, state sovereignty, and federalism.