Sharing the Facts About State and Local Authority to Set Public Safety & Law Enforcement Priorities

Throughout early 2025, the Justice Department has repeatedly pushed the bounds of federal vs. state authority, including around the enforcement of immigration law. These actions have the potential to directly harm state and local officials’ ability to set and enforce their own public safety priorities. And they threaten the balance of power by undermining local authority to set law enforcement priorities.

For example, the president issued an executive order directing the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to cut off federal funds to some state and local jurisdictions. The threat to pull funding is directed at jurisdictions the White House claims “interfere” with the federal government’s work by declining to fully participate in and prioritize federal immigration enforcement efforts over local public safety and law enforcement priorities. However, immigration enforcement is primarily a matter of federal civil law, not criminal. And with limited resources, undertaking federal law enforcement responsibilities would stretch state and local capacity in a way that could be seriously detrimental to public safety.

The Justice Department has already taken steps to implement this executive order. First, through a memo that directs federal prosecutors to criminally investigate state and local officials who fail “to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives.” And then through a memo that outlines a plan to cut off funding to state and local jurisdictions that do not advance the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. The second memo also directs the Justice Department to bring civil lawsuits against those jurisdictions to challenge state and local policies.

The Justice Department has already filed two of these lawsuits against Illinois and New York. These cases are at odds with states’ powers to set their own law enforcement priorities and serve their own communities — they do not have to enforce federal law on the federal government’s behalf.

Here are some key takeaways about state and local officials’ authority over enforcement of immigration law and other public safety priorities:

• States are power centers in our system of government, with the responsibility and authority to set and enforce laws that work for their communities.
  • State leaders know far better than the federal government about how to serve and protect the people in their states.
• The U.S. Constitution gives states broad authority to create their own laws, set their own law enforcement and public safety priorities, and do what they believe is best for their residents.
  • This means that state and local officials have the responsibility to establish their own priorities for protecting communities, enforcing the law, and enhancing public safety.
  • Local leaders know their communities best. And they must be the ones responsible for deciding the best way to maintain trust between people and the law enforcement officers that keep them safe. This is at the heart of effective policing and public safety.
• Americans elect their state and local leaders to make public safety decisions for their communities — not the federal executive branch.
  • The federal executive branch cannot require state and local officials in charge of enforcing laws — from state attorneys general to police to district attorneys — to consider federal priorities ahead of state and local policies.
  • Federal officials are placing their priorities above community safety. And in the process, they’re threatening to fundamentally sever the relationship between state and local law enforcement and their communities. It would harm everyone.
• The Trump Administration is trying to pressure local law enforcement to enforce federal law — which is federal law enforcement’s job.
  • You wouldn’t expect your local police department to enforce the tax code or investigate SEC violations. We shouldn’t expect them to enforce federal immigration law either. It’s not their job.
  • Local law enforcement is also not trained to enforce these laws, and doing so would take time away from their real job: keeping us safe from crime.
  • Courts across the country have repeatedly found that state and local officials are not responsible for assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
• If state and local jurisdictions take on responsibilities that belong to the federal government, it would have significant harmful tradeoffs to public safety.
  • Communities should not have to bear the burden of their law enforcement being pulled away from crucial local priorities like emergency response, preventing and holding people accountable for violent crimes, and investigating domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation, and rape.
  • And the federal government should be held accountable for their federal law enforcement decisions, not put that responsibility on state and local law enforcement.
• Using the threat of criminal prosecution against state and local officials for following the law and doing their jobs is a gross abuse of power.
  • Local officials and law enforcement should not be investigated for merely doing their jobs in accordance with the law. And they should not face prosecution for it either.
  • The Justice Department’s threats interfere with local officials’ and law enforcement officers’ abilities to do their jobs.
  • The Justice Department has an important role to play in upholding federal laws. These actions are improper and far exceed that role.