On Wednesday, January 22, 2025, the Justice Department issued an alarming directive allowing federal prosecutors to target state and local officials who obstruct the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. Legal scholars have criticized this directive as an unusual extension of federal authority.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove issued a three-page memo outlining this assertive approach to compel local compliance with federal immigration priorities. Senior legal analyst for CNN, Elie Honig, characterized this strategy as “extraordinary” and “very heavy-handed” during an appearance on CNN’s “NewsNight.” He also noted widespread opposition, citing concerns about federal overreach.
The memo sets up a “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group” to identify and challenge local policies that may hinder federal immigration enforcement. This group is expected to collaborate with U.S. Attorney’s offices across the nation to initiate criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against jurisdictions that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Legal experts have cautioned that this strategy closely resembles the Trump administration’s unsuccessful attempts during its first term to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions. During that time, federal courts repeatedly rebuffed attempts to withhold federal funds from states and cities that restricted cooperation with ICE, citing constitutional issues.
Elie Honig elaborated, “What is being threatened is if you commit a crime, if you harbor an illegal alien, which is a federal crime,” he said. “Now, typically, DOJ has overlooked that. That’s within prosecutorial discretion. But what the feds are saying is, ‘If you, locals, if you harbor an illegal alien, if you obstruct our efforts to enforce this law, then we might prosecute you.’”
The directive starkly reverses Biden administration policies by instructing prosecutors to pursue “the most serious, readily provable offense” in immigration cases. It further calls for FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to assist with immigration operations and mandates that Justice Department branches share immigration status data with Homeland Security.
California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta labeled the memo as “legally suspect” and pledged to uphold state sovereignty. During Trump’s first term, California successfully argued that requiring state law enforcement to aid federal immigration agents was a breach of the Tenth Amendment.
Constitutional law specialists have identified the anti-commandeering doctrine as a significant hurdle for the directive’s implementation. This principle, backed by various Supreme Court rulings, prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal laws or regulations.
In an attempt to defend its aggressive stance, the memo cites worries about fentanyl trafficking, international gang activity, and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. However, critics point out that similar arguments failed to sway the courts in past legal challenges to Trump’s immigration policies.
Following the release of the directive, several states have already started preparing for legal battles. Attorney Generals from New York and Illinois have declared their intention to fight any attempts to force compliance with federal immigration enforcement, citing successful legal precedent from previous court conflicts during Trump’s first term.
On CNN, California Attorney General Bonta stated, “We are not required to take part in immigration enforcement efforts.” Yet, not all Democrats are united in their opposition this time. On Wednesday, January 22, 46 House Democrats—about one-fifth of the caucus—joined 217 Republicans in approving a bill that mandates the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants accused of theft.
This bill has already passed in the Senate with Democratic support, and President Trump has signed it into law.
