No. of Recommendations: 14
"You can see the obvious problems with both those arguments. The first points out correctly that federal law requires people to be able to provide ICE with certain types of information, but then claims IL is violating that law by not providing different types of information - not the information they're required to provide. The second argues that because ICE is required to make a request for detainer in some circumstances, IL is required to follow that detainer - even though following the detainer is not required for states. Just because ICE is required to ask doesn't mean a state is required to say yes.
I mean, it's just bad. It's the sort of lawsuit you file when your client has ordered you to go to court even though you've told them there's no actual case. There's enough handwaving to avoid being sanctioned for a frivolous case, but arguments are just legally weak - they're logically bad.
States are allowed to refrain from helping the federal government enforce federal law. That's not "passive aggressively stopping them" - it's the anti-commandeering doctrine, an important part of federalism that recognizes that the States are not instrumentalities of the federal government. They can't conflict with federal law (the Supremacy Clause), but the federal government doesn't get to make them enact or enforce federal laws."
LOL
These lawsuits aren't designed to win in court. No court (even the nutty Supreme Court) will accept the arguments in them. Like you point out they are legally weak, but also illogical.
The lawsuits are designed to fire up the lawfully ignorant (like BHM and Dope). Make it look like the Trump administration is doing something. Now the talking heads on FOX will be able to drone on and on for a few days about these lawsuits and BHM and Dope will lap it all up.
These lawsuits won't accomplish anything except fool the ignorant.
