ADVERTISEMENT
1) States aren’t required to help ICE.
Under the anti-commandeering doctrine (Supreme Court cases like Printz v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA), the federal government can’t force states or governors to use state resources to enforce federal law. So “sanctuary” policies—declining to hold people on ICE detainers, limiting info-sharing beyond what federal law requires—are generally
2) Obstruction requires active interference, not non-cooperation.
Federal obstruction statutes typically require affirmative acts: things like blocking agents, hiding suspects, destroying evidence, giving false statements, or directing others to do those things. Simply saying “state police won’t assist ICE” or “we won’t honor civil detainers” doesn’t meet that bar.
3) When could charges even be plausible?
Only in narrow, extreme scenarios—e.g., if a governor:
Ordered state officials to physically impede ICE agents,
Directed false statements or evidence tampering,
Coordinated to harbor individuals to evade arrest, or
Used force or threats against federal officers.
Those would be about conduct, not policy.
4) Federal law still wins when it’s directly obstructed.
Under the Supremacy Clause, states can’t interfere with lawful federal operations. Courts draw a line between not helping (okay) and actively hindering (not okay).
Governors who block cooperation with ICE are almost never committing obstruction. Charges would hinge on specific illegal actions, not political opposition or policy choices.
If you want, I can walk through a concrete example (e.g., detainers, courthouse arrests, or state police directives) and show where courts usually draw the line.
