Well, that didn’t take long. Newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi wasted zero time before rolling up her sleeves and taking aim at sanctuary policies. On Thursday, she filed a lawsuit against Illinois and Chicago, calling out their refusal to enforce immigration laws. In other words, Bondi walked into the Justice Department, saw the mess, and immediately started taking out the trash.
Her lawsuit? Simple: She wants the courts to declare the state’s and city’s sanctuary policies “invalid.” And let’s be honest—that’s legalese for “What are you people even doing?”
On Wednesday, after being sworn in as the new AG, Bondi said, “I will restore integrity to the Justice Department, and I will fight violent crime throughout this country and throughout this world and make America safe again.”
Translation? The Justice Department is back in business, and Bondi didn’t come to play.
The lawsuit, officially filed in a Chicago federal court, lays out the case in no uncertain terms.
“By refusing to honor civil detainers and warrants expressly authorized by Congress, Defendants have unlawfully eliminated these means for federal immigrations officials to carry out their statutory functions,” the complaint stated.
Ah yes, because nothing says “law and order” quite like local officials deciding which federal laws they feel like following.
The suit names Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, both sued in their official capacities, and points out a glaring contradiction.
“Both the Governor of Illinois JB Pritzker and Mayor of Chicago Brandon Johnson, sued here in their official capacities, profess a shared interest with the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws to effectuate the removal of such offenders from the United States,” the 23-page lawsuit contended.
Let’s pause for a second. These same officials claim they want to enforce immigration laws… while actively passing policies that block enforcement? That’s like saying you want to go on a diet but also ordering extra fries and a milkshake.
The lawsuit goes even further, making it clear that this nonsense has real consequences.
“The conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing—and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting—federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States,” according to the lawsuit.
So in other words, the city’s leaders have been treating immigration enforcement like a suggestion, not a law, and now we’re all supposed to be shocked that it’s led to an increase in crime. Who could have possibly seen that coming?
Here’s where we get all constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, is known as the Enumerated (numbered) Powers. They are the 18 powers that the federal government gets. Every other power belongs to the states and the people. That’s what the 10th Amendment says. Anyway, one of the Enumerated Powers says that Congress has the authority “to create an uniform rule of naturalization.” That means the federal government has sole authority over immigration in the United States. That makes sanctuary cities unconstitutional, or illegal if you will.
Meanwhile, ICE isn’t waiting around for permission. Just last month, they reminded everyone why they exist:
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with federal partners, including the FBI, ATF, DEA, CBP and the U.S. Marshals Service, began conducting enhanced targeted operations today in Chicago to enforce U.S. immigration law and preserve public safety and national security by keeping potentially dangerous criminal aliens out of our communities.”
And guess what? This isn’t new. Back when Trump first took office, ICE wasted no time getting to work.
According to the WaPo:
The lawsuit appears to be the first that the Justice Department has filed after vowing to investigate state and local officials for allegedly interfering with President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove warned in a memo during the first days of the Trump administration that officials in so-called sanctuary cities could face legal action if they undermine federal immigration laws.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges that multiple state and local laws are “designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.”
ICE reported more than 3,500 arrests in Trump’s first week. First week.
Bottom line? Pam Bondi isn’t here for the political games, and Chicago’s leaders are about to find out the hard way that ignoring federal law comes with consequences. Stay tuned—this is going to be fun to watch.
#immigrationreform #pambondi #sanctuarycities
In a decisive move, newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi has initiated a comprehensive crackdown on sanctuary city policies, specifically targeting Chicago and the state of Illinois. On her first day in office, Bondi directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to suspend federal funding to jurisdictions that impede federal immigration enforcement efforts. This directive affects major cities like Chicago, which have enacted laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago, challenging local statutes such as the Illinois TRUST Act and Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance. The federal government contends that these laws obstruct the enforcement of national immigration policies and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by superseding federal authority.
Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson have defended their sanctuary policies, asserting that they are essential for maintaining public safety and community trust. They argue that such laws encourage undocumented individuals to report crimes without fear of deportation, thereby fostering better cooperation between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
This legal confrontation underscores the escalating tension between the federal government and sanctuary jurisdictions. While the administration emphasizes strict adherence to federal immigration laws, local leaders maintain that their policies are crucial for protecting vulnerable populations and upholding public safety. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement and the autonomy of local governments in shaping policies that reflect their community values.