The DOJ’s Crusade Against Sanctuary Policies
When the Department of Justice dramatically sued Colorado and Denver over their ‘sanctuary’ policies, the move marked the latest flashpoint in a long, contentious war over immigration enforcement in America. Under the Trump administration, the DOJ has long wielded the power of the federal purse and the courtroom to pressure states and cities that challenge its immigration agenda. With this lawsuit, Colorado is thrust into a familiar struggle, its leaders refusing to surrender local autonomy in the face of federal dictates.
At the heart of the lawsuit: innovative local laws constraining the hand-in-glove cooperation between local police, jails, and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The DOJ specifically challenges a 2023 Colorado law that prevents law enforcement from detaining people solely on immigration holds, as well as a 2021 measure shielding residents’ personal information from federal scrutiny. Denver’s own ordinance goes further, blocking city employees from dedicating local resources to federal immigration efforts and requiring ICE to obtain a judicial warrant before entering city jails. These policies, federal attorneys claim, impede ICE’s efforts and compromise national security.
But is this really a matter of national safety, or is it yet another volley in the political culture war? Denver Mayor Mike Johnston responded succinctly: “We do collaborate with ICE to pursue violent criminals…if we have someone in our custody, they send us a detainer request, and what we do is we notify them when they’re going to be released.” The city and state maintain their position—they are not harboring criminals but rather protecting their communities from unnecessary overreach and fostering trust with immigrant populations who have reason to fear aggressive federal action.
States’ Rights, Community Trust—and the Conservative Backlash
Longstanding American tradition trumpets the value of local and state empowerment. Yet, recent conservative policies have sought to tilt this balance, demanding fealty to sweeping federal mandates even when they undermine vital community trust. The real-world effect of sanctuary policies is not to harbor criminality, but to encourage the reporting of crime, deter racial profiling, and prevent families from being torn apart by heavy-handed immigration raids. A study from the Urban Institute found that in mixed-status households, parents are less likely to report crimes if they fear local police are proxy agents of ICE.
It’s worth recalling the shattered relationships between police and marginalized communities after Arizona passed its infamous SB 1070 law. That measure, requiring police to check immigration papers on suspicion, led to widespread fear and, as reported by the American Civil Liberties Union, a sharp decline in reports of domestic and violent crimes in immigrant neighborhoods. History has already shown the perils of using local law enforcement as an extension of federal immigration crackdowns—a tactic that erodes trust and ultimately makes communities less safe.
Yet, the DOJ’s recent suit takes cues from the same political playbook: use inflated claims about public safety (such as President Trump’s widely disputed allegation that a Venezuelan gang took over an Aurora apartment complex) to push for tighter federal grip. The pattern echoes past legal actions against Chicago, New York, and California, all of which defended their sanctuary stances vigorously in court. Harvard Law Professor Gerald Neuman notes that, time and again, “courts have recognized that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law.” The concept of cooperative federalism is not just a bureaucratic footnote; it’s a bulwark against authoritarian overreach.
“Sanctuary policies are not a sign of lawlessness—they are an act of constitutional resistance against federal intrusion and a pledge to protect the fabric of vulnerable communities.”
Legal Battles Ahead and the Fight for Progressive Values
What happens when conservative policies prioritize spectacle over substance, stoking fears and stirring division? The answer lies in courtrooms, where state and city leaders, like Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser, prepare to defend laws that balance public safety with human dignity. The Colorado Attorney General’s office has declared its intent to “vigorously defend local autonomy and our state’s lawful prerogatives,” echoing community advocates who see these policies as a shield against indiscriminate raids and civil rights abuses.
Beyond that, leaders like Mayor Johnston underscore the effectiveness of collaboration—not capitulation. Denver works with ICE in cases of real criminality while standing firm on due process and community trust. This nuanced approach, once hailed by law enforcement associations, is now recast as obstruction by a conservative DOJ unwilling to accept any compromise.
Progressive ideals are on trial in this battle, with the outcome shaping not only immigration enforcement but the very contours of democracy and justice in America. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the federal government cannot force states to implement its policies. But legal precedent does not guarantee political goodwill, especially in an era when facts give way to fearmongering and nativism. According to a 2021 Pew Research study, two-thirds of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country if they meet certain conditions.
What is at risk if the Trump DOJ’s lawsuit prevails? State and local governments could lose the ability to tailor law enforcement to fit the needs and values of their residents. Trust between immigrant communities and the authorities would deteriorate, undermining collective security and the American principle of equality before the law. Are we ready, as citizens, to relinquish our commitment to due process, local sovereignty, and social cohesion—all for fleeting political gain?
