A Constitutional Collision Course? When Federal and State Powers Clash over Immigration Policy.
A recent proposal by Jacksonville officials to enact local immigration laws has sparked significant controversy, with the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) asserting that such measures are unconstitutional. This debate underscores the enduring tension between federal authority and local initiatives in the realm of immigration policy. After all, what are the states and local authorities to do when the federal authority is arguably overreaching its constitutional authority?
The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedence over state and local statutes. In the context of immigration, the federal government possesses exclusive authority to regulate the entry, residence, and removal of non-citizens. Consequently, any local legislation that attempts to govern immigration matters risks being preempted by federal law. This principle was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States, where key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law were invalidated on the grounds that they encroached upon federal jurisdiction.
Jacksonville’s proposed law aims to enhance local enforcement of immigration regulations. However, the ACLU contends that such measures could lead to racial profiling, civil rights violations, and the erosion of trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Similar concerns have arisen in other jurisdictions. For instance, in Florida, a federal court temporarily blocked a provision of SB 1718, an anti-immigrant law, citing potential risks to community members, including arrest and family separation.
The conflict between federal and local authorities over immigration enforcement is not unique to Jacksonville. In Massachusetts, the cities of Chelsea and Somerville filed lawsuits against the Trump administration’s threats to withdraw federal funding due to their sanctuary city policies. These cities argue that their limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities is essential to ensure that immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and cooperating with local police.
Pennsylvania has recently become a focal point in the national debate over immigration enforcement. In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a directive threatening to prosecute local officials who defy federal immigration orders. Despite this, Pennsylvania politicians have challenged the directive’s legal foundation, asserting that it infringes upon state sovereignty and undermines community trust.
Similarly, Boston has faced criticism from federal officials for its approach to immigration enforcement. The city’s reluctance to fully cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has led to threats of increased federal intervention. Boston officials maintain that their policies are designed to balance public safety with the need to maintain trust within immigrant communities.
These instances highlight the complex interplay between federal authority and local autonomy in immigration matters. While local governments may seek to address specific community concerns through tailored policies, they must do so within the constitutional framework that grants the federal government primacy in immigration regulation. As debates continue, the courts will play a pivotal role in delineating the boundaries of local versus federal power in this contentious policy area.