Published by DBUNK | February 7, 2025
One of our subscribers recently requested that we fact-check a BBC article titled “Trump administration sues Chicago over ‘sanctuary city’ laws“. We examined the claims, statements, and legal interpretations to determine whether the information presented was accurate and free from misrepresentation.
Does the Federal Government Have the Power to Enforce Immigration Policies on States?
The article presents a federal lawsuit against Chicago over its sanctuary city laws but does not fully explain the legal limitations of federal enforcement over state and local governments. The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment restricts the federal government from “commandeering” state agencies to enforce federal law, a principle repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, such as in the 1997 case Printz v. United States.
While the Trump administration may sue to challenge state and city policies, forcing local law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers lacks a clear legal foundation. The article does mention opposition from Illinois officials, but it does not explain that federal courts have previously ruled against using federal financial threats to coerce local cooperation.
Misinformation or Missing Context?
The article correctly describes the Justice Department’s lawsuit but frames sanctuary cities as if they are legally mandated to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests, which is misleading. A detainer request is not the same as a judicial warrant, and local law enforcement is not legally required to honor them. Courts have ruled that holding individuals solely on ICE detainers can violate the Fourth Amendment.
Additionally, the quote from Border Czar Tom Homan — “sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals” — is presented without challenge, despite studies showing that sanctuary policies do not lead to higher crime rates. The article could have provided additional context or referenced crime studies rather than leaving this claim unchecked.
Context on Birthright Citizenship
The article mentions that a federal judge struck down Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, but it does not explain that birthright citizenship is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge’s ruling was not surprising, as legal experts overwhelmingly agree that birthright citizenship is a long-established constitutional right.
Final Assessment
While this BBC article accurately describes the lawsuit and reactions, it lacks sufficient legal context on state-federal relations regarding immigration enforcement. The omission of legal rulings that support Chicago’s position makes it seem as though the city is violating federal law when, in reality, the courts have often ruled in favor of sanctuary jurisdictions.
For news that provides more context, stop wasting hours verifying information—let DBUNK do the work for you.
Have a claim you’d like fact-checked? Submit a request on our app, and we’ll investigate it for free.
