Eleven Democratic states have publicly challenged the Trump administration's warnings about potential legal action against jurisdictions that don't comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The states argue that these threats lack specificity and are ultimately hollow. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont jointly issued a statement on Thursday, criticizing the Justice Department's recent memo. This memo instructed federal prosecutors to investigate state and local officials who resist President Trump's immigration policies, including his plans for large-scale deportations.

The states contend that these threats, while concerning, are currently just words. They emphasize their readiness to take action if these threats translate into unlawful measures. The Justice Department memo, penned by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove (Trump's former defense attorney), asserts that federal law prohibits state and local entities from obstructing lawful immigration-related directives from the President. Bove cites the President's Article II authority, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Alien Enemies Act as justification.

He directed U.S. attorneys' offices to investigate instances of non-compliance for potential prosecution, including charges of obstructing federal functions. The state attorneys general counter this argument by referencing Printz v. United States, a Supreme Court case that established the federal government's inability to compel state and local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. They argue that the President cannot unilaterally alter the Constitution and that his threats amount to an attempt to weaponize the Justice Department against public servants adhering to state laws. This, they claim, undermines the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.