You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

Commentary: Sheriff Hernandez stands on solid constitutional ground

Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez’s decision to limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is, to be sure, politically controversial. Her decision, nonetheless, is above constitutional reproach.

The late Antonin Scalia, President Trump’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, has an important federalism lesson for the president or others who might plan to conscript state and local officials to enforce his draconian immigration policies. In Printz v. United States (1997), Scalia held that “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana, and Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, challenged —successfully — the interim background check provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act imposed three judicially-enforceable duties on “chief [state and local] law enforcement officers.” After these officials received notice of proposed handgun transfers, the statute provided that they “shall” make reasonable efforts to ascertain within five days whether the proposed transfer would be illegal; “shall” destroy information about the transfer if the transfer does not violate federal, state or local law; and “shall” provide a statement of reasons for a determination that the transfer is illegal. The Supreme Court held that “such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same federalism defense invoked by the two politically conservative sheriffs is readily available to more liberally minded officials like Sheriff Hernandez in sanctuary states and cities who are opposed to federal immigration laws and policies. State and local officials, of course, are free to cooperate with federal officials in the enforcement of national immigration laws. President Trump’s provision in his Jan. 25 Border Security Executive Order “to authorize State and local law enforcement officials … with their consent … to perform the functions of [federal] immigration officers” is undoubtedly valid. From the beginning of our nation, state and local officials have cooperated with federal officials in enforcing national law. The president can encourage Sheriff Hernandez to enlist; he cannot draft her into ICE. If the president wants to enforce national immigration laws, he must commit national resources, not state and local officials and not state and local tax dollars, to the task.

The president’s threat in a companion executive order to withhold federal funding from sanctuary states and cities that violate Section 1373 of the Immigration Code also faces a substantial constitutional hurdle. The national government, to be sure, can deny federal funds for violating conditions attached to a grant. Section 1373, however, does not involve a grant of federal funds. Instead, this statute directly prohibits states and local governments from taking certain actions restricting the flow of immigration status information to the national government. Even if there are some limited federal funds expressly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373, the sheriff is free to ignore the command of the statute if she turns down the grant.

If the president has in mind a comprehensive denial of federal funds, he should take heed of Chief Justice John Robert’s warning in the decision striking down parts of the Affordable Care Act that the president and Congress cannot use the spending power — and the threat of broadly withholding federal financial assistance — to force the states and local governments to do the national government’s bidding. They cannot, in the chief justice’s colorful phrase, use the spending power as a “gun to the head” of state and local officials.

Stand firm on your principles, Sherriff Hernandez. Let ICE and Attorney General designate Jeff Sessions drag you into court and attempt to coerce your department to enforce national immigration laws. Justice Scalia is in your corner. There is little reason to fear that the conservative justices now on the court, who proudly support the states’ role in our federal system, will abandon you.

La Pierre is a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. In a 1997 Supreme Court case Printz v. United States, La Pierre filed an amicus brief for two state and local government organizations in support of two sheriffs.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: A road map for dealing with campus radicals

Jonathan Haidt is a member of one of America’s smallest fraternities — m those who attempt to see beyond their own prejudices. In the left-leaning Chronicle of Higher Education, he notes that “intimidation is the new normal” on college campuses. The examples are well-known: The shout-down/shutdown of Heather Mac Donald at Claremont...
Smith: Texas lawmakers are locked in the bathroom
Smith: Texas lawmakers are locked in the bathroom

The Texas Legislature seems to have locked itself in the bathroom — and it won’t come out. Outside, millions of Texans — like confused family members wondering what could be wrong — pound on the bathroom door, pleading for lawmakers to come out. We refer, of course, to legislation that would force transgender folks to use public...
Mackowiak: Compromise bathroom bill threads the needle
Mackowiak: Compromise bathroom bill threads the needle

Perhaps it is a sign of how much our culture has changed that a simple notion — that boys and girls should not shower together in schools — is considered controversial. The so-called “bathroom bill,” which seeks to prevent the mixing of boys and girls in our schools, passed the Texas Senate under the able leadership of state...
Letters to the editor: May 1, 2017
Letters to the editor: May 1, 2017

There are more than 430,000 registered motorcyclists in Texas. May is the beginning of prime motorcycle riding season. We can all expect to see more motorcycles on the road. Please be aware that motorcycles have a smaller profile, so not only are they easy to overlook, it is also more difficult to judge their speed and distance. A 2013 study by the...
Herman: 'My Cousin Vinny' and the race for State Bar president
Herman: 'My Cousin Vinny' and the race for State Bar president

Let us count the ways that it’s well worth your time and trouble to become a lawyer. You get to help people and make a living wage doing it — perhaps even enough to live in Austin. And you get to stand up in court and say cool stuff like, “I object!” And you get to star on cloying daytime TV ads hunting for people who have been...
More Stories