Illinois Sheriffs May Defy State Immigration Laws
The waves made by intensified immigration crackdowns in Illinois and across the country have sparked a thread of contention among the state’s sheriffs. Many of them have expressed a growing desire to collaborate more closely with federal immigration controllers, notwithstanding state laws that curb their capacity to contribute. A recent poll of these sheriffs unveiled that over two-thirds of those who responded feel hamstrung by these state laws, and would wish for their nullification or amendment. Some even revealed they are engaged in activities that seem to breach the state’s liaisons.
Two key legislations govern the sheriffs’ engagement in civil immigration enforcement in Illinois: the Illinois TRUST Act of 2017, and the Illinois Way Forward Act of 2021. Positioned as a shield, these laws prevent local officers from holding anyone on behalf of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from granting agents entry into jails, or from disclosing nonpublic information. Such actions can only be permitted under the authority of a federal criminal warrant or court order.
An invitation to share their views was extended to all 102 Illinois sheriffs, of whom 28 agreed to participate either through direct communication with reporters or via electronic survey responses. Unsurprisingly, the opinions of the law enforcement officers were diverse. Some claimed neutrality due to negligible immigration-related activity in their county. However, others advocated for an outright repeal or modification of state legislation to facilitate a deeper partnership with federal immigration enforcement.
Despite the statewide scope of the survey, certain regional voices were missing. No response came from 21 of the most northern counties in the state, excluding Cook County. This added further nuance to the complexity reflected in the sheriffs’ range of perspectives.
Legal interpretations of the state’s stance on immigration enforcement diverged significantly. While some law officers perceived that they were being compelled to execute federal policies, the perspective of legal authorities was starkly different. Legal scholars and even a federal judge have referenced the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in Printz v. United States to highlight that state and local officers cannot indeed be coerced by the federal government to implement federal initiatives.
Cementing the legality of the TRUST Act was the Illinois Attorney General, Kwame Raoul. His public statement emphasized that the act had weathered multiple legal challenges and remained a cornerstone of state law. “The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that the Supremacy Clause does not preempt the TRUST Act,” Raoul said, signifying strong resolve in the law’s endurance.
While the legal skirmish continues, the human stakes remain undeniably high on both sides. The Pew Research Center’s 2023 report revealed approximately 550,000 individuals living without legal status in Illinois. This reality accentuates the consequences of local law enforcement choosing to cooperate with ICE.
The concern centers around the potential for such cooperation to instill fear in immigrant communities, discouraging victims and witnesses of crimes to engage with local police. Critics warn of the erosion of trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. In turn, they believe this could hamper public safety across the board.
However, opposition voices argue that the TRUST Act protects immigrants from federal enforcement at the cost of community safety. The debate continues to divide law enforcement, communities, and policymakers alike.
Two sheriffs, Washington County’s Sheriff Ross Schultze and Jefferson County’s Sheriff Jeff Bullard Sr., had voiced faith in the prospect of a lawsuit against the state’s immigration laws. Their optimism was, however, short-lived when the suit was abruptly dismissed.
The Justice Department missed its chance to revise its complaint within the stipulated August deadline, causing the case to be rejected outright, as indicated in the court docket.
Despite setbacks in the courts, Raoul’s office has been steadily fortifying its stance. It continues to provide clear guidelines to law enforcement about the TRUST Act since its inception. His office has made it clear that it stands ready to collaborate with law enforcement agencies to ensure they comply with existing legislation.
Yet there remains a faction of sheriffs that appear to be in overt conflict with the TRUST Act. They express a readiness to work with ICE on detainer orders or other forms of assistance if given the opportunity. For them, safety concerns take precedence, and they respect federal laws as the supreme authority.