Some politicians seem to have figured out that making bold statements with confidence can sometimes replace actual truth-telling. This was particularly evident during California’s gubernatorial race.
Tom Steyer, a wealthy liberal donor turned candidate, called for ending ICE and even suggested imprisoning its officers, labeling federal law enforcement as a “violent extremist group.”
Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa went so far as to compare ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan, while state school superintendent Tony Thurmond declared his intention to arrest ICE agents. Meanwhile, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra promised to take action against “immigration police.”
These politicians are among the frontrunners for governor of the largest state in the country.
You might wonder if any of these things are actually feasible. The answer, based on constitutional law established over the last two centuries, is no.
Such questions tend to get overlooked though, as performance takes priority.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, along with established Supreme Court rulings, indicates that states can’t prosecute federal employees for actions taken in the course of their federal duties—so long as those actions are deemed necessary.
This legal principle isn’t obscure; it’s fundamental to American federalism and has been in place longer than many of the current candidates have been alive.
The law isn’t complicated. If a federal officer was allowed to be present and believed their actions were necessary for their mission, then state prosecution cannot move forward. Simple as that.
If any local district attorney were reckless enough to pursue such a case, the Justice Department could intervene by moving it to federal court, where federal privileges would apply and state prosecutors would be entirely excluded.
Steyer’s idea to empower state attorneys general to hold ICE accountable for violence and criminally prosecute not just employees but also their supervisors lacks any real explanation on how state law would override federal authority.
This simply isn’t possible. Candidates know this—or at least they should. Their legal advisors certainly do.
What we are observing is less about a legal strategy and more about politics.
The dynamics of the California primary, particularly among Democrats, are pushing towards increased confrontations with federal authorities, more funding for the legal defense of undocumented immigrants, and increasingly provocative rhetoric regarding ICE.
This tendency doesn’t just influence the campaign; it alters the interaction between state officials, local law enforcement, and federal agents.
It indicates that obstruction is not merely tolerated; it appears to be the official stance of ambitious political figures.
Thomas Sowell, an economist and commentator, once remarked on the absurdity of decision-making being left to individuals who face no repercussions for their mistakes. California’s gubernatorial hopefuls have adapted this idea in surprising ways, making ambitious promises to an audience that may never realize the impossibility of their claims.
The reality of the Supremacy Clause remains unaffected by campaign slogans or applause from debate stages. The federal supremacy exemption doesn’t change based on election cycles.
Interestingly, Xavier Becerra’s case is notable since he once served as California’s attorney general and now proposes to crack down on immigration enforcement. One would assume that someone who pledged to uphold the law would at least remember the supremacy clause. Apparently, that was a short-lived lesson.
ICE responded simply: “ICE is not a political football.” No legal jargon required. Perhaps that’s why this statement drew so little attention.
California voters face a choice between candidates making extravagant promises regarding powers they don’t legally possess, set against a federal government that operates under its own mandates.
What they ought to be asking, though, is a more straightforward question: If your key proposal can’t even withstand initial legal scrutiny, what is your actual plan?
In many cases, the answer boils down to emotions. Unfortunately, emotions don’t align with legal authority.
