In the days leading up to Christmas, an unsettling series of letters were sent to numerous local and state officials across the United States. This correspondence appeared to outline a potential strategy for the upcoming Trump administration’s efforts to challenge “sanctuary” areas that oppose mass deportation initiatives. The letters included threats of criminal prosecution and the possibility of lawsuits aimed at the personal assets of these officials. They even referenced RICO, the federal statute typically employed in the fight against organized crime.
The group behind these letters, America First Legal, which is led by advisors to President Trump, claimed that officials and their staff could face severe penalties, including prison terms of up to 20 years. Stephen Miller, the head of this group, is set to become the deputy chief of policy in the new administration, and has been instrumental in shaping Trump’s immigration policies.
The officials who received these warnings primarily came from cities, counties, and states known for their sanctuary policies—legal protections that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The list included officials who had made outspoken commitments to resist deportation efforts, such as Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, who had pledged to use “every tool in the toolbox” against mass deportations. Many of those targeted were included for not aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in detaining individuals for being in the country illegally.
These letters may indicate a framework for upcoming legal actions aimed at enforcing Trump’s stringent immigration plans. They accused the officials of violating various federal laws, including those that prohibit immigrant smuggling and impede federal agents in their duties. A federal immigration operation in Chicago is expected to kick off shortly after Trump’s inauguration, focusing on over 300 individuals with violent crime records. Chicago has long identified as a sanctuary city, with officials indicating a reluctance to alter this stance.
Legal scholars have noted that courts have often upheld the legality of sanctuary laws, asserting that such laws are not designed to protect or hide undocumented individuals but rather clarify the non-involvement of local officials in federal immigration enforcement. Mark Fleming, a lawyer with the National Immigration Justice Center, stated that these laws delineate roles, emphasizing that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.
Immigration attorneys have expressed skepticism regarding the legal claims made in the letters. They argue that local law enforcement is simply executing laws that have been established. Nonetheless, the significance of these letters is being taken earnestly by many, particularly because of Miller’s prominent role in shaping the administration’s immigration stance.
Lawyers like Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project, described these letters as primarily meant to instill fear rather than present legally sound arguments. This fear has been echoed by advocates and officials alike, with community members anxious about whether their cities will maintain their sanctuary status.
Concerns were raised regarding the potential impact of these letters, particularly on smaller jurisdictions that may lack the resources to fend off legal battles. Past attempts by the Trump administration to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions through the withholding of public safety grants were met with largely negative outcomes in court, but there is speculation about whether such tactics will resurface.
The letters have been sent to over 200 officials, including prominent figures in Los Angeles and New York, and typically outline threats of civil and criminal liabilities for implementing sanctuary policies. James Rogers of America First Legal even warned that employees involved in these policies could be facing lengthy prison sentences.
While many legal experts dismiss the threats, they acknowledge that unfounded legal claims can still result in significant disruptions for those accused. Fleming pointed out that the fear induced by such letters can effectively serve the administration’s intentions, even if they do not successfully win in court. The mere threat of lengthy court battles, especially in smaller regions with limited legal resources, could push authorities to reconsider their sanctuary commitments and cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Divisions over sanctuary policies have already emerged in various jurisdictions, with some sheriffs in states like California and Washington openly pledging to disregard such laws. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has stated he would take measures against officials who do not comply with federal immigration directives.
Conversely, Democratic leaders, such as Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and New York Governor Kathy Hochul, have vowed to uphold their sanctuary policies in the aftermath of Trump’s election. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson also reaffirmed that the city police would not aid ICE in deportation efforts. The critical challenge remains whether these sanctuary officials can maintain their positions in light of the considerable legal threats and the upcoming administration’s clear agenda centered on immigration.
With Stephen Miller returning as a significant adviser, many feel that ignoring the potential consequences of these letters might not be an option for officials facing personal legal risks.
