Federal Judges Reject Trump's Use of Supremacy Clause to Override State Policies
Two federal judges have dismissed Justice Department lawsuits that relied on the Constitution's supremacy clause to challenge New York's sanctuary rules and California's voter-registration actions.
The Trump administration has attempted to use the Constitution's supremacy clause as a broad tool to override state and local regulations on immigration and voting. In New York, U.S. District Judge Ramón Reyes rejected a Justice Department claim that the city's sanctuary policies conflicted with federal law, emphasizing that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce immigration measures.
Meanwhile, in Florida, Judge David Leibowitz dismissed a case against a Jamaican-born woman who illegally registered to vote, stating that the power to set voting qualifications resides with the states, not Congress. This decision, while not ending the broader California lawsuit seeking to invalidate ballots from roughly 20,000 alleged noncitizens, adds another obstacle for the administration. Legal analysts argue that the administration treats the supremacy clause as an almost limitless source of power, but the courts are drawing clear constitutional boundaries. The setbacks illustrate the judiciary's role in checking federal overreach in contentious policy areas.
Why it matters
The rulings limit the federal government's ability to bypass state authority on immigration and voting, affecting future policy battles.
In this story
