{"id":2678756,"date":"2026-10-08T09:00:56","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T13:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaigndemocrats-revive-nullification-with-refusals-to-assist-federal-immigration-enforcement\/"},"modified":"2026-10-08T09:18:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T13:18:05","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaigndemocrats-revive-nullification-with-refusals-to-assist-federal-immigration-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaigndemocrats-revive-nullification-with-refusals-to-assist-federal-immigration-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Dems Revive Nullification With Efforts To Undercut Immigration Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaigndemocrats-revive-nullification-with-refusals-to-assist-federal-immigration-enforcement%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2678756&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article discusses New York&#8217;s &#8220;Local Cops, Local Crimes Act,&#8221; which bans local governments and law enforcement from maintaining or entering federal agreements under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, effectively nullifying existing agreements. This law aims to restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, prompting fifteen sheriffs to sue in federal court, arguing it unlawfully interferes with federally authorized agreements and local law enforcement autonomy. The legal debate centers on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/limbaugh-the-tyrannical-lefts-sinister-conspiracy-to-silence-conservatives\/\" title=\"LIMBAUGH: The Tyrannical Left\u2019s Sinister Conspiracy To Silence Conservatives\">constitutional principles<\/a>, particularly the supremacy clause that affirms federal law&#8217;s precedence over state law, and whether New York&#8217;s law violates the contract clause by impairing existing federal-local agreements.The law also raises questions about local elected sheriffs&#8217; authority, the federal government&#8217;s ability to enforce immigration laws, and the broader issue of states attempting to nullify federal policies, reminiscent of 19th-century nullification efforts. A similar case in Virginia suggests federal courts may find that <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >state laws impeding federally authorized programs violate constitutional principles<\/a>. Ultimately, the case highlights the tension over who holds decision-making authority in federal immigration enforcement-state or federal-and the potential implications for federal authority and national unity if states are permitted to block federal programs through local laws.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>New York\u2019s \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nysenate.gov\/legislation\/laws\/EXC\/170-K\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Local Cops, Local Crimes Act<\/a>\u201d is being sold as a public-safety measure.\u00a0Its premise, however, reaches far beyond the question of how local police should allocate their time. The law forbids New York\u2019s local governments and law-enforcement agencies from continuing or entering into agreements with the federal government under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, and it declares existing agreements void and unenforceable under state law.<\/p>\n<p>That matters because Congress expressly created Section 287(g) to permit the federal government to enter into mutually beneficial written agreements with states and political subdivisions that allow qualified state or local officials to perform specific immigration-related functions.\u00a0New York\u2019s new law therefore is not merely a declaration that Albany will decline to participate in a federal initiative in the future.\u00a0It expressly commands local entities to terminate and abandon existing federal agreements.<\/p>\n<p>Fifteen New York sheriffs have sued in federal court to challenge the statute. <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fairus.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2026-08\/Complaint-Bourgault-v-Hochul-No-26-cv-1637-filed-8-25-2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Bourgault v. Hochul<\/a><\/em>  was filed on Aug. 25, 2026, the ban\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.governor.ny.gov\/news\/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-governor-hochul-announces-local-cops-local-crimes-provision-banning\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">effective date<\/a>. The plaintiffs seek emergency relief arguing that the state has unlawfully interfered with federally authorized agreements and with the authority of locally elected sheriffs to make law enforcement decisions for their counties.\u00a0The case is still pending.<\/p>\n<p>The constitutional stakes are straightforward to describe, even if the ultimate legal answer is not.\u00a0The supremacy clause makes the federal Constitution and valid federal laws \u201cthe supreme Law of the Land.\u201d This means that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/former-trump-aide-files-to-have-georgia-2020-election-racketeering-charges-dropped\/\" title=\"Ex-Trump aide seeks dismissal of Georgia 2020 election racketeering charges.\">federal law takes precedence<\/a> over contrary or conflicting state law.\u00a0Federal preemption doctrine <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/567\/387\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">accordingly<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/312\/52\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">prevents<\/a> a state from enforcing its own law when that law conflicts with federal laws or obstructs the execution of federal objectives, especially in a field such as immigration where Congress has enacted a comprehensive enforcement scheme.<\/p>\n<p>But there is a complication that should not be overlooked.\u00a0The federal statute <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/8\/1357\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">says<\/a> that the functions performed by participating states or local officers must be carried out \u201cto the extent consistent with State and local law.\u201d That language gives New York a plausible argument that Congress contemplated state-law limits \u2014 albeit, probably not outright bans \u2014 on participation.<\/p>\n<p>There is also a contract clause question.\u00a0The U.S. Constitution commands that no state shall pass a \u201cLaw impairing the Obligation of Contracts.\u201d\u00a0The Supreme Court\u2019s modern contract clause analysis asks whether the challenged law substantially impairs a contractual relationship and, if so, whether the impairment is justified by a significant and legitimate public purpose and is reasonable and appropriate to that purpose. <\/p>\n<p>New York\u2019s law does not merely regulate a future contract.\u00a0In apparent violation of the contract clause, it unreasonably tells local entities that they must leave existing 287(g) agreements and provides that those agreements are \u201cvoid and unenforceable,\u201d thus impairing the sheriffs\u2019 reciprocal contractual obligations with the federal government. <\/p>\n<p>New York\u2019s Constitution <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nysenate.gov\/legislation\/laws\/CNS\/A13S13\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">makes<\/a> its county sheriffs locally elected officers.\u00a0While this does not necessarily establish unlimited sheriff autonomy, it makes the plaintiffs\u2019 arguments about elected local law enforcement discretion more than rhetorical flourishes, especially given that the ironically named \u201cLocal Cops, Local Crimes Act\u201d actually bars county sheriffs from using their discretion regarding how best to protect their local citizens from illegal immigrants\u2019 criminal behavior.\u00a0Thus, the dispute centers on whether Albany may retroactively overturn policy choices made by independently elected sheriffs to work with the federal government based on their first-hand knowledge of the unique public safety needs of their constituencies.<\/p>\n<p>The state may respond that under Supreme Court precedent, the federal government cannot \u201ccommandeer\u201d \u2014 that is to say, enlist \u2014 state or local officials to enforce federal law. It will argue that its law merely directs how its political subdivisions may use state-created governmental authority and resources. <\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs, however, will reply with their own \u201creverse-commandeering\u201d argument, which appears in their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fairus.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2026-08\/Complaint-Bourgault-v-Hochul-No-26-cv-1637-filed-8-25-2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">complaint<\/a>.\u00a0In part, it alleges, \u201cWhen a State coerces local officials into abandoning the very cooperative mechanisms Congress authorized, it does not merely regulate its own internal affairs. It commandeers those officials into a regime of obstruction that frustrates the federal scheme.\u201d\u00a0The state\u2019s argument does not answer the questions of whether a state may regulate the federal government itself, or, as in this case, invalidate federal\/local contractual arrangements authorized by and implementing federal law.<\/p>\n<p>A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-the-supreme-court-skrmetti-ruling-reshapes-us-legal-cases\/\" title=\"How the Supreme Court Skrmetti ruling reshapes US legal ...s\">closely related case<\/a> in Virginia makes New York\u2019s lawsuit particularly timely.\u00a0On Aug. 31, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Payne <a href=\"https:\/\/virginiamercury.com\/2026\/09\/01\/federal-judge-effectively-blocks-new-state-law-limiting-virginias-cooperation-with-ice\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">blocked<\/a> key portions of a Virginia law that would have imposed new conditions on existing 287(g) agreements. The court concluded that the federal government was likely to prevail on its contract clause and supremacy clause theories, while leaving in place a prohibition forbidding localities that had not already done so from entering the 287(g) program.<\/p>\n<p>The broader historical parallel also merits consideration.\u00a0The constitutional principle at issue is the 19th-century nullification controversy over Southern Democrats\u2019 proposition that a state could declare a federal law inoperative within its borders.\u00a0South Carolina\u2019s 1832 Ordinance of Nullification declared the federal tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 \u201cnull, void, and no law\u201d within the state.  <\/p>\n<p>While New York has neither expressly declared a federal law unconstitutional nor claimed a general power to cancel federal statutes, the resemblance in logic between South Carolina\u2019s Ordinance of Nullification and New York\u2019s \u201cLocal Cops, Local Crimes Act\u201d is hard to miss when New York uses its own law to render a federally authorized program ineffective within its boundaries because state officials disapprove of federal policy.<\/p>\n<p>That is why <em>Bourgault v. Hochul<\/em> is more than a dispute over the allocation of police resources.\u00a0At bottom, this case asks who gets to decide whether a federal immigration program Congress created may operate through willing local partners:\u00a0Washington, Albany, or the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/san-franciscos-woke-school-board-may-decide-against-renaming-racist-schools\/\" title=\"San Francisco\u2019s \u2018Woke\u2019 School Board May Decide Against Renaming \u2018Racist\u2019 Schools\">locally elected officials<\/a> who lawfully chose to participate. <\/p>\n<p>Although states are entitled to decline many federal programs, the federal government, in turn, is entitled to execute and enforce, unimpeded, federal law within its superior constitutional sphere. Immigration regulation is one of those superior constitutional spheres in which federal law takes precedence over contrary or conflicting state law, as per the United States Constitution\u2019s supremacy clause. <\/p>\n<p>What a state cannot be permitted to do is transform a policy disagreement into an exercise of state power to nullify federal authority.\u00a0Such state action is incompatible with majority rule, as such is embodied in laws enacted by majorities of both houses of Congress that are intended to have uniform nationwide effect.   <\/p>\n<p>If New York\u2019s law survives, the decision will carry implications well beyond immigration.\u00a0The decision may define how far a state may go in disabling any federal program it opposes by ordering its local governments to withdraw from it. If New York\u2019s law survives, other sanctuary states will feel emboldened to enact legislation or to take action that thwarts, within their states, the enforcement, objectives, or purposes of federal laws with which they disagree.\u00a0When they do so, the United States of America will no longer be \u201cone nation \u2026 indivisible,\u201d but a conglomeration of fractious states.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      K.R. Kirby is an attorney from Buffalo, New York. He has represented individual, business, and municipal clients in numerous New York state and federal courts.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>NY law bans local agreements with federal immigration authorities<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4434,"featured_media":2678757,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Copy-of-Untitled-2026-10-05T073321.901.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[3685,56999,33810,53921,86895],"class_list":["post-2678756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-democrats","tag-federal-authority","tag-immigration-law","tag-nullification","tag-political-efforts-2"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Copy-of-Untitled-2026-10-05T073321.901.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4434"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2678756"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678756\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2678766,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2678756\/revisions\/2678766"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2678757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2678756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2678756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2678756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}