ADDENDUM F: State Nullification and Constitutional Breakdown in Federal Immigration Enforcement

No Police Power, No Courts

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

I. Introduction

This addendum addresses the rise of state and local “sanctuary” policies that openly defy federal immigration law. These measures constitute a form of modern nullification, violating the Supremacy Clause and eroding the constitutional architecture that requires uniform national enforcement. When states or municipalities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, the result is a fragmented legal regime that enables infiltration, criminal harboring, and the functional collapse of border enforcement.

---

II. The Constitutional Framework: Federal Supremacy in Immigration

Supremacy Clause – U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

> “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

The federal government holds exclusive authority over immigration, as affirmed in multiple cases:

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

The Supreme Court struck down state immigration laws that conflicted with federal priorities, reaffirming that:

> “The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”

Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)

Established that states cannot impose immigration rules inconsistent with federal law:

> “Where the federal government has enacted a complete scheme of regulation... the state cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere.”

---

III. Nature of Sanctuary Policies as De Facto Nullification

Sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws or policies that:

Prohibit cooperation with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Refuse detainers, release individuals sought for deportation.

Provide identification, benefits, or concealment to illegal aliens.

These actions amount to a direct refusal to execute federal law—a posture reminiscent of antebellum nullification crises.

Key Examples:

California’s SB 54 (the "California Values Act") bars state and local agencies from using resources to enforce immigration laws.

New York City and Chicago openly resist ICE detainers and enforcement actions.

In 2020–2024, multiple local governments issued non-cooperation orders with DHS enforcement directives.

> This has resulted in thousands of violent criminal offenders being released instead of turned over to federal custody (see ICE "Declined Detainer Outcome Report").

---

IV. Consequences for National Security and Sovereignty

When sub-national entities create havens for illegal aliens—including those suspected of terrorism, organized crime, or espionage—the following constitutional crises emerge:

A. Erosion of Executive Power (Article II)

The President cannot “faithfully execute” immigration laws if entire jurisdictions defy federal agents.

B. Unequal Protection of the Laws (14th Amendment)

U.S. citizens in non-sanctuary states face higher security and legal standards than those in sanctuary zones, creating a two-tier legal system.

C. Harboring as Obstruction of Justice (8 U.S.C. § 1324)

State and local officials may be shielding individuals from federal law enforcement, amounting to civil obstruction or criminal harboring.

D. Infiltration Opportunity Zones

Hostile actors, including foreign intelligence agents, paramilitary operatives, and transnational gangs, can strategically choose sanctuary zones to embed and operate with little risk of detection or deportation.

---

V. Courts Have Enabled Jurisdictional Nullification

Although Arizona v. United States reaffirmed federal supremacy, courts have:

Failed to penalize or enjoin sanctuary policies.

Blocked or delayed federal defunding efforts aimed at non-cooperating jurisdictions (City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018)).

This judicial passivity:

Encourages further defiance,

Shifts immigration control to local discretion,

Undermines the unitary enforcement principle necessary for national sovereignty.

---

VI. Constitutional Precedent for Uniform Enforcement

> “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” – Abraham Lincoln

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819): States cannot interfere with or impede valid federal operations.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958): State governments are bound by Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

> Federal immigration enforcement is not optional—it is binding on all levels of government.

---

VII. Conclusion

Sanctuary policies are not acts of civil disobedience; they are structural sabotage of constitutional federalism. They:

Nullify federal immigration law,

Obstruct Executive enforcement,

Create asymmetric zones of legal immunity,

And directly threaten national security by allowing adversaries to hide within legal fog.

If unchecked, these policies will complete the constitutional breakdown already underway via judicial overreach and procedural paralysis (Addendum B). No court holds authority in a jurisdiction where enforcement of law is denied. Sovereignty exists only where law is uniform—and enforceable.