Image 01 Image 03

Trump DOJ Sues Los Angeles, Citing Supremacy Clause in Challenge to Sanctuary City Policies

Trump DOJ Sues Los Angeles, Citing Supremacy Clause in Challenge to Sanctuary City Policies

LA Mayor Karen Bass and City Council were also sued.

It was mere weeks ago that demonstrators against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials were organizing in Los Angeles, waving Mexican flags, throwing rocks at ICE vehicles, setting fire to Waymo vehicles, and igniting other blazes around federal facilities.

The organizers of this fiasco may have thought they were creating BLM 2025, but with a Mexican twist. However, President Donald Trump’s administration seems to have been prepared for a BLM replay, and Los Angeles officials are now dealing with a number of unintended consequences.

To begin, Trump sent in the National Guard and the U.S. Marines to protect federal property. The demonstrations were not allowed to escalate as likely intended.

The anti-ICE riots are poised to cost the city $32 million in recovery and repair efforts. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy indicates he will not be authorizing one dime to help the city with these expenses.

Now the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a federal lawsuit against the city, arguing that its recently enacted sanctuary city policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by intentionally discriminating against the federal government and impeding federal immigration enforcement.

The city’s laws, DOJ says, “interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law,” according to the lawsuit filed Monday.

“The practical upshot of Los Angeles’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities has, since June 6, 2025, been lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism. The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the complaint states.

Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles City Council were named in this lawsuit as well. The responses from these illegal immigration enablers are woke classics!

Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, she has pushed back against the Trump administration’s portrayal of L.A. as a city enveloped in violence, saying that immigration agents are the ones sowing chaos, terrorizing families and harming the city’s economy.

“To characterize what is going on in our city as a city of mayhem is just an outright lie,” Bass said earlier this month. “I’m not going to call it an untruth. I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m going to call it for what it is, which is a lie.”

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez represents much of Hollywood, where immigration agents recently raided a Home Depot on Sunset Boulevard. Asked about the lawsuit, he said the president is “tearing families apart” as he seeks to “force every city and town to help him carry out his white nationalist agenda.”

Those of us who work in the regulatory environment are familiar with the U.S. Supremacy Clause, which is found in Article VI, Clause 2 of our Constitution. This particular article asserts that the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the highest laws in the country.

Therefore, if there’s ever a conflict between federal law and state law, federal law trumps state rules. Additionally, state laws that contradict federal law are not valid and cannot be enforced.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

I highlighted a section that many judges seem to have forgotten. But, I digress.

Hopefully, the DOJ will prove successful in its case, and this could set a pivotal legal precedent with nationwide implications for other sanctuary jurisdictions. I will note that this strategy was deployed against Chicago in February of this year, signaling a systematic effort to challenge sanctuary policies through the courts.

I also suspect that Los Angeles officials will be grappling with even more unintended consequences from their attempt to create a “Resistance 2.0,” for quite some time.

My only worry is that next time, Los Angelenos will find an even bigger communist than Bass and make him/her/it/them mayor. You know, like NYC on the West Coast.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

LA and CA officials don’t have to assist Federal Agents but they must not be allowed to reframe their acts to impede Federal Immigration Enforcement as merely ‘uncooperative’. IOW they can absolutely be passively neutral, they can stand aside and refuse to assist but they can’t actively impede or take positive actions that have the effect of obstructing Federal Agents.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 1, 2025 at 10:42 am

    They are not actively impeding federal agents. Not even the feds are claiming otherwise. They’re claiming that the refusal to assist “impedes” them. Well, the constitution says tough luck.

      destroycommunism in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 11:38 am

      calling for the cholos to impede is pretty active

        Milhouse in reply to destroycommunism. | July 1, 2025 at 11:48 am

        First of all, LA has not called for the cholos to do anything. Nor has any LA official.

        Second, calling for someone to do something is not active. It’s advocacy, which the first amendment protects. If those cholos do interfere with ICE, ICE can arrest them.

          Azathoth in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 12:10 pm

          Not bothering with a mask at all anymore, Democrat?

          destroycommunism in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 4:37 pm

          calling
          noun
          call·​ing ˈkȯ-liŋ
          Synonyms of calling
          1
          : a strong inner impulse toward a particular course of action especially when accompanied by conviction of divine influence

          “course of action”

          and cudahy ca is in fact in la county

          andddddd

          socialist mayor bass is of the same mindset as Cynthia Garcia

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:46 pm

          Azathoth, you lying piece of garbage, go jump back into the Lake of Fire from which you came. How dare you call me a Democrat

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:49 pm

          destroy, now you’re just deliberately lying.

          Not that this definition is even relevant, and you know it, but also an “inner impulse toward” something is not that thing. And you know that too.

          You also know very well that it’s irrelevant what county Cudahy happens to be in. It is not the City of Los Angeles, and that is all that is relevant to this lawsuit.

          destroycommunism in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:57 pm

          millhouse

          your credibility takes a major downgrade here with this:

          July 1, 2025 at 7:49 pm

          destroy, now you’re just deliberately lying.

          Not that this definition is even relevant, and you know it, but also an “inner impulse toward” something is not that thing. And you know that too.

          You also know very well that it’s irrelevant what county Cudahy happens to be in. It is not the City of Los Angeles, and that is all that is relevant to this lawsuit.

          your claim that a/ thee definition is NOT RELEVANT!!?

          I made the connection for you in that their ( bass and garcias) thinking is the same

          same way that a connection would be made between say adolph and mussolini ..

          come on man!

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 1:51 am

          destroy, you have no credibility. At first I thought maybe English was not your first language, but that excuse has worn thin. The definition you offered is not only COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, as you well know, you also deliberately misrepresented it.

          And no, it makes no difference whatsoever what county that person’s city is in. She has no connection whatsoever to the CITY OF LOS ANGELES, which is the ONLY Los Angeles that is relevant here.

          You are simply a dishonest person. As well as one who butchers the English language.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 12:27 pm

      The Feds can’t commandeer State/Local resources but the flip side is the State/Locals can’t impede Federal Agents…. and getting between Federal LEO and their targets is impeding the Feds. IMO the question of obstruction turns on whether the act was passive or active.

      The local and State govt are absolutely free to refuse to actively assist and to then step aside out the way allowing the Federal Agents to do their job without their active assistance….but they don’t step aside, instead they get between the Federal Agents and their targets…that is obstruction IMO. We will find out whether the judiciary ultimately agrees before too much longer.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 1, 2025 at 7:51 pm

        getting between Federal LEO and their targets is impeding the Feds
        […]
        they don’t step aside, instead they get between the Federal Agents and their targets

        That is not true. They don’t do that. No “sanctuary city/state” officials do that. They simply refuse their assistance, just as the free states used to do with the slavecatchers, and the wet states used to do with the revenuers.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 6:37 am

          So CA officials simply stand aside and allow ICE to carry out their mission and don’t interposed themselves by seeking to block access to public areas?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 7:28 am

          That’s right. If you’ve seen reports that they do otherwise, please link them because I’ve never seen them. I assume that if they did that they would immediately be arrested, and I’d definitely have heard of that; the fact that they’re not being arrested tells me that they’re not breaking any laws, which means they’re not obstructing ICE.

      Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 2:39 pm

      Impeding by omission or commission is still impeding.

        Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | July 2, 2025 at 7:29 am

        No, it isn’t, because they’ve got a constitutional right to refuse assistance. Congress can’t make such refusal a crime.

E Howard Hunt | July 1, 2025 at 9:29 am

OMG, Trump is using the white supremacy clause and tearing hard woking fambalies apart.

They cheered on Obama when he sued Arizona to establish Federal Supremacy over immigration law. Sucks when it comes back to bite you.

    Milhouse in reply to diver64. | July 1, 2025 at 10:46 am

    That is a dishonest comparison, and you know it. 0bama did not want to compel Arizona to do anything, but exactly the opposite. He sued Arizona to stop it enforcing federal law without permission. He sued to compel it to do exactly what the constitution allows it to do: Sit back and do nothing, and let ICE either do its job or not, as it chooses. That’s exactly what LA is now doing. It’s sitting back and letting ICE do its thing unassisted.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 11:36 am

      Absolutely correct. But on this point, state and city sanctuary laws are every bit an infringement upon the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over immigration and are therefore unconstitutional (even if they only promote passivity because the intrusion into the subject matter alone makes them unconstitutional). I believe the ruling was correct but it’s a two-edged sword.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2025 at 11:50 am

        The sanctuary laws don’t intrude into the subject matter at all. They are the state regulating what its officials may and may not do. And the Supreme Court explicitly upheld the states’ right to do exactly that, about 200 years ago.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:27 pm

          Hey you what, let’s all agree that CA and LA can absolutely choose not to cooperate with ICE….though ICE isn’t an independent agency it is part of the Dept of Homeland Security. So that being the case if CA and LA insist upon a course of non cooperation with the Dept of Homeland Security they gotta be prepared for the entire Dept of Homeland Security not to cooperate with them. No intel, no extra funds, no extra resources, no joint Task Forces. All or none, in or out.

          Sucks that the TSA guys will get pulled from all CA airports and the Customs guys from the sea ports in order to facilitate the immigration enforcement mission but that’s how it goes with scarce Federal resources and a State/local gov’t that don’t wish to cooperate with Dept of Homeland Security. I’m sure the folks who depend on those things operating will understand that their elected officials chose this course and will support CA officials standing on principle despite the economic cost…after all money isn’t everything. Though the loss of tax revenue to CA given their current budget woes might pinch a bit.

          I’m sure the flash traffic control points the Feds set up within 100 miles of the border (which definitely includes the Pacific Coastline) to run immigration checks on every vehicle and every pedestrian will rapidly ferret out illegal aliens for detention. Sucks that the Feds can’t give advance notice of what areas will be impacted on any given day but since the State and local gov’t don’t want to cooperate they really can’t complain. Probably won’t take longer than 18-24 months to accomplish the goal despite lack of cooperation from CA officials.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:58 pm

          Chief, the Supreme Court has been clear, several times, that (1) Only Congress can do that, not the administration on its own; (2) Even Congress must make the link between funding and cooperation explicit; (3) Even so, the state must be left with the ability to say no; if the cut in funding, etc., is so big that the state has no choice but to comply then that is coercion and it’s unconstitutional, and Congress must restore the funding.

          Congress simply does not have the authority to use its spending power to force states to do its bidding. But in any case, Congress hasn’t even tried to do that. The administration on its own can’t create such a linkage at all, even for a small amount. Again, see South Dakota v Dole, and the first 0bamacare case.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 6:50 am

          Milhouse,

          The federal positions will be funded but the federal personnel redirected to other locations …by the POTUS who is the unitary Executive.

          As for ‘extra’ funding I refer to any funds not appropriated and authorized specifically for CA. The Executive can absolutely use discretion on these sorts of ‘extra’ funds within the budget of various agencies. The grants specifically appropriated and authorized by Congress for CA would continue.

          IMO you rely way too much on the these decisions which were both about mixed pots of money (Fed and State) for a shared program responsibility highways and healthcare. I don’t believe they apply broadly to Federal funds such as a grant. In fact I’d argue that the military recruiter case successfully forcing access by recruiters to campuses or the schools losing fed funding is far more analogous here.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 7:31 am

          If I recall correctly, the recruiter access case was with a private university (Harvard), so the tenth amendment didn’t come into play. Also, if I recall correctly, it was a condition imposed explicitly by Congress.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2025 at 3:40 pm

          Milhouse,

          Rumsfeld v FAIR was actually a broad coalition of law schools opposing ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ who were baring military recruiters on campus b/c.they disagreed with Federal policy. Wasn’t just a.single private university.

          It boiled down to SCOTUS agreeing that the Executive could cut off Federal funds if these institutions sought to bar military recruiters from coming onto campus. No free speech issues at stake (which is what FAIR hung its hat on) b/c there wasn’t an ask or.order to the institutions to speak or refrain from speaking. Instead it turned on basic Constitutional power ‘raise and support armies’.

          Very analogous to jurisdictions seeking to bar or block ICE coming into areas they control, just like those institutions blocked recruiters from campus areas under their control. Similar basic Constitutional power ‘set Uniform rules of Naturalization’ with the Executive delegated power (and duty) to enforce the rules made by Congress.

Drop the hammer, early and often.

Since I’m not a legal eagle (more like a legal beagle) someone help me out:

Can the federal government step in and put the City in receivership? And for that matter, the state?

What’s going on in California right now would make Mao blush. We shouldn’t have to put up with this nonsense.

    Milhouse in reply to Peter Moss. | July 1, 2025 at 10:49 am

    No, it can’t. The states are not subdivisions or creations of the union. The union is the creation of the states. The union exists to serve the states, not vice versa.

    This is the opposite of the relation between a state and counties or municipalities within it, which are subdivisions of it and its own creations, and exist only to serve it, and can thus be abolished or altered at will (subject only to the state’s own constitution).

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 11:40 am

      Again, quite correct. But the Lincoln administration argued exactly the opposite (that the States are creations of the federal government) to find much of its authority during the Civil War. Sounds far-fetched, runs against what was then fairly recent history, but this is a fact. (Source: The Real Lincoln, T. DiLorenzo)

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2025 at 11:52 am

        No, the Lincoln administration did not argue that at all. It argued that the states are permanently bound by their agreement to join the union, but not that the union created them.

          geecheeboy in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 7:35 pm

          The states never agreed to be PERMANENTLY bound. The civil war merely established that some states would attempt to kick the shit out of the other states if they tried to leave, i.e., MIGHT = RIGHT. If the Federal government tries and is successful at kicking the shit out of sanctuary jurisdictions, we may find ourselves looking at another new paradigm.

destroycommunism | July 1, 2025 at 10:23 am

there is so much subterfuge going on against america>>trump

bbc was running another anti trump pro trans military article

in which it was admitted that during 45s tenure that the military

IGNORED potus djt and continued to authorize trans surgeries etc despite it being against the law

the whole civil servants entities,,,should be just like our new pro american immigration policies

get rid of everyone and thennnn slowly allow back in those worthy of the job

destroycommunism | July 1, 2025 at 10:25 am

think once again of the mindset being employed of the oft repeated nazi phrase of
I was just following orders

as police officers etc on the LA payroll
refuse to arrest violent criminals when its happening b/c the leaders are pro criminal

This is a frivolous lawsuit, and should be thrown out immediately. It is long-established that states have a constitutional right to refuse to cooperate with the federal government’s wishes, and that the federal government has no right to commandeer state resources for its own purposes.

If ICE lacks the resources to enforce immigration law without the city’s assistance, that is entirely its problem and not the city’s or the state’s. The federal government’s argument cited here could just as easily have been made in every previous case where the anti-commandeering doctrine has been enforced.

ICE is no more impeded by LA’s non-cooperation than the slavecatchers in the 1840s were impeded by the free states’ refusal to assist them. There is no difference between ICE now and the slavecatchers then. Slavecatchers were federal officials enforcing federal law, and they had to do their work with their own resources or not at all, and could not call on the states in any way. States could and did make it illegal for any state or city official to assist the slavecatchers, just as California has done now.

The same is true with states that refused to enforce Prohibition. Their refusal “impeded” federal enforcement no less than LA does to ICE now.

Likewise, the sheriffs who refused to conduct the background checks that the Brady Act required certainly impeded the implementation of that law, and yet the courts correctly ruled that the law requiring them to do so was unconstitutional. The supremacy clause did not help the feds, because only valid federal laws are supreme and any law that requires states to do Congress’s bidding is not a valid law.

Likewise the section of the 0bamacare law requiring states to set up insurance exchanges, and conditioning medicare funding on their cooperation, was struck down because Congress cannot use its funding powers to compel states to do its bidding. The states were free not to establish exchanges, and Congress had to keep funding their medicare programs anyway.

So explain how this is different.

    KEYoder in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 10:54 am

    Can you summarize for us non-lawyers what argument the Justice Dept. is trying to make in support of this suit?

      DaveGinOly in reply to KEYoder. | July 1, 2025 at 11:44 am

      I think Milhouse is correct. The argument I’ve made is, I think, a winning argument, but not one that’s been made by the DOJ in its complaint. The complaint will likely be dismissed (agreeing with Milhouse).

      Milhouse in reply to KEYoder. | July 1, 2025 at 11:57 am

      It’s arguing by obfuscation. Without either the facts or the law on its side, it’s pounding on the table. It correctly says that valid federal laws override all state laws (including state constitutions) that contradict them. But it pretends that California’s sanctuary laws do contradict federal law, and are thus overridden; not only don’t they, but they can’t, because Congress can’t make a law that would conflict with them.

      Paddy M in reply to KEYoder. | July 2, 2025 at 7:40 am

      Milhouse isn’t a lawyer. He plays pretend on the internet.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 11:43 am

    Explained above.
    Restated here (briefly).
    The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter (immigration). State and city laws concerning same are unconstitutional because they have no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 1, 2025 at 11:45 am

      That is a dishonest argument. Neither California nor LA are trying to enforce immigration laws. On the contrary, they are refusing to enforce them, which the constitution guarantees their right to do.

        noway in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 2:25 pm

        Excuse me gentlemen, but I am somewhat confused on this issue. The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 is almost exactly the same as this, except for the fact that South Carolina voted that the tariff were unconstitutional and null and void in the state of South Carolina.

        The California state government and many local governments have in fact said that Federal Immigration law is null and void in their jurisdiction by becoming Sanctuary cities and assisting illegal immigrants with money, health care, issuing drivers licenses, and may other ways.

        Also, city and state governments have publicly supported people who have physically interfered with ICE.

        It is hard for me to see the difference between the Nullification Crisis and what is going on in California and other Sanctuary States and Cities. What happened in Arizona is exactly the opposite of what is going on here, and I hope the DOJ can make a case that the Supreme Court can sustain when it gets there.

          Milhouse in reply to noway. | July 1, 2025 at 8:09 pm

          No, this is nothing like the nullification crisis. Had the federal government asked South Carolina to collect the tariff on its behalf, SC would have been 100% within its rights to refuse. It wouldn’t even have to claim that the tariff law was invalid; it would simply tell the feds “It’s your tariff, you collect it, we won’t lift a finger to help you”. The feds would not have even objected to that, let alone created a crisis over it. They never expected the states to collect their taxes for them in the first place. Federal taxes are always collected directly by the federal government.

          What South Carolina tried was to declare the tariff invalid within their state, and so prevent the feds from collecting it. They threatened to arrest federal tax collectors for robbery, since they were collecting a tax that the state had declared invalid. And they couldn’t do that.

          Sanctuary cities are not behaving like South Carolina but like Pennsylvania in the same era. Pennsylvania told the feds “We accept that the Fugitive Slave Act is a valid law, and you are entitled to enforce it. When your slavecatchers come into our state and kidnap our citizens off the streets because someone in South Carolina claims to own them, we unfortunately can’t stop them. We can’t arrest them for kidnapping. But we think what they’re doing is evil, and so they will do their work without any assistance from anyone who works for this state or for any city, county, or other subdivision of this state. Private individuals may help you if they wish, we can’t stop them; but if a government employee helps you they will be fired and prosecuted.” And the Supreme Court said that was just fine, and protected by the tenth amendment.

          Milhouse in reply to noway. | July 1, 2025 at 8:15 pm

          Also, city and state governments have publicly supported people who have physically interfered with ICE.

          The first amendment protects that. Anyone, including state and city governments acting officially for their state or city, is entitled to express any opinion they like, including expressing support for criminals.

          It’s a crime to rob a bank, or to assist in any way in doing so. But it’s a constitutional right to advocate bank robbery, and to praise bank robbers. But when the police come to arrest them, don’t get in their way, because that’s not advocacy.

    Azathoth in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2025 at 12:21 pm

    Virtuously, the Democrat alludes to slavecatchers and prohibitionists, saying the states had the right not to assist them.

    But his tortured, Jacksonesque legalese belies the truth.

    Eisenhower had to stop the Democrats by using the military to integrate schools. Let us not forget that the states were in the wrong here –as these same Democrat states were in the wrong when they asserted the same ‘state’s rights’ position to keep slaves.

    Which is what they’re doing now.

    They are trying to stop the federal government from removing their illegal caste workers. People with no recourse to the law. People who can be exploited by Democrats in the same way Democrats exploited slaves.

      Milhouse in reply to Azathoth. | July 1, 2025 at 8:21 pm

      The Demon from Hell lies again and again.

      No sanctuary city is preventing federal authorities from enforcing federal law. They are merely refusing to assist, just as happened with the slavecatchers and the revenuers. And just as the sheriffs did with the Brady Act. If Trump wants to send troops in to enforce immigration laws, there are federal laws that regulate how he can do it, and he must stick to what those laws allow, or else ask Congress to change them; but subject to those laws he is completely within his rights to do so. The state or city would have no constitutional grounds to complain. They wouldn’t have to like it, but they couldn’t claim it was unconstitutional.

      For instance Newsom’s suit against Trump relies exclusively on federal laws that he claims Trump is not complying with. It doesn’t rely on the constitution, because there’s nothing in the constitution that prevents Trump from using troops to enforce federal law in the states. Posse Comitatus is just a statute, which Congress can change if necessary.

Something (probably many) things is wrong with Bass. In every picture of her I’ve seen it looks like she is pumped full of happy juice to the gills.