City of New York v. United States
179 F.3d 29, 1999 WL 357395 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Tenth Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws that preemptively bar state and local governments from restricting their employees from voluntarily providing information to federal authorities, as such laws do not compel state action but merely prohibit state obstruction of federal programs.
Facts:
- In August 1989, New York City Mayor Edward Koch issued Executive Order No. 124.
- The Executive Order prohibited most City officers and employees from transmitting information regarding an individual's immigration status to federal immigration authorities.
- The order's exceptions included when disclosure was required by law, when an individual gave written authorization, or when an individual was suspected of criminal activity.
- Even in cases of suspected criminal activity, the order barred line workers from directly contacting federal authorities, requiring instead that designated officials review such cases.
- Successive mayors, David Dinkins and Rudolph Giuliani, reissued the Executive Order.
- In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed Section 434 of the Welfare Reform Act, which stated that no state or local government could be restricted from sharing immigration status information with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
- Shortly thereafter, Congress passed Section 642 of the Immigration Reform Act, which expanded the prohibition, stating no government entity or official could restrict another from sending immigration status information to the INS.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani filed an action against the United States in federal district court.
- The City sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that federal Sections 434 and 642 were unconstitutional.
- Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings.
- The district court granted the United States' motion and dismissed the City's claims.
- The City of New York, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do federal laws that prohibit state and local governments from restricting their employees from voluntarily communicating an individual's immigration status to federal authorities violate the Tenth Amendment by impermissibly commandeering state and local governments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Winter
No, the federal laws do not violate the Tenth Amendment. These laws do not unconstitutionally commandeer state governments because they do not compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Unlike the laws struck down in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, Sections 434 and 642 do not conscript state employees into federal service or force them to take any affirmative action. Instead, the laws merely prohibit state and local governments from enacting policies of mandatory non-cooperation that actively frustrate a federal program. The Tenth Amendment serves as a shield against federal commandeering, not as a sword allowing states to obstruct federal law enforcement. The Supremacy Clause bars states from frustrating federal laws, and these sections are a valid exercise of that principle by preempting a local ordinance that specifically targets and hinders a federal program.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York and Printz. It draws a critical distinction between unconstitutional federal laws that compel states to affirmatively act and constitutional laws that merely preempt state policies of obstruction. The ruling establishes that Congress has the power to prevent states and localities from forbidding their own officials to voluntarily cooperate with federal authorities. This has significant implications for state and local 'sanctuary' policies, suggesting that while the federal government cannot force local officials to enforce immigration law, it can legally dismantle local laws that gag those same officials from choosing to assist.
