I’m going to admit to being very confused and depressed over what’s going on here in Chicago. Take the “no-ICE zones” that Mayor Johnson proclaimed here in Chicago, for instance. Via WGN from the Associated Press:
CHICAGO (AP) — A new executive order issued Monday by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson prohibits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating on city-owned property.
Johnson signed the “ICE-Free Zones” executive order during a morning news conference at the Westside Justice Center. It comes days after President Donald Trump authorized sending hundreds of National Guard troops to Chicago, a move that’s prompted a legal challenge from Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s administration.
The mayor said he considers his executive order a step toward accountability, but he said more drastic action is needed to reign in what he called “a rogue administration.”
The order makes it illegal for federal immigration agents to use city-owned property for their operation. A sign will be posted at places that include Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Park District parking lots.
My immediate reaction to that was does the mayor really want the federal government eminent domain-ing city land? That the federal government has the authority to do that is settled law under United States v. Carmack. There might be some quibbling about whether it has been authorized by Congress but I suspect that would fall under the category of “necessary and proper”.
Breaking the law in the interests of preserving the law doesn’t sound like a winning proposition to me.
Not how I understand eminent domain. ICE, meaning Noem and Trump like the showy raids but there is no reason to raid a school, especially since they just put everyone in ziplocks then sort them out later. They are dragging kids naked out into the streets. What exactly would we gain, other than the sadism, of dragging a bunch of naked kids out of a locker room shower and dragging them outside into public view?
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S3-C2-2/ALDE_00013510/
Steve
What the “no-ICE zones” do is prevent ICE from using city property as staging areas for raids. I don’t believe the city has the authority to prevent the federal government from doing that. It has nothing to do with conducting raids on schools.
I guess you trust ICE. I think history shows that if you have an anonymous, largely unaccountable police force they will abuse their power. In context, I dont want them on the grounds of a school. It’s hard to believe that would be the only place they could stage and they can tolerate a minor inconvenience to keep kids safe.
Steve
Steve
“ What the “no-ICE zones” do is prevent ICE from using city property as staging areas for raids. I don’t believe the city has the authority to prevent the federal government from doing that.”
What authority gives the federal government the ability to unilaterally utilize state or municipal owned land?
See above. That was decided in United States v. Carmack. And then, of course, there’s the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Dave Schuler: And then, of course, there’s the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
That would only apply if the Congress passed specific legislation. Even that could be subject to judicial review under the Fifth Amendment.
Dave Schuler: That was decided in United States v. Carmack.
Absent specific Congressional action, the process of eminent domain requires due process, including the right to notice, a court hearing with right to appeal, and fair compensation. See Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, 40 U.S. Code § 3113, § 3114, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 71.1. The federal government can’t just walk uninvited into state property and set up business, any more than they can walk into your home and set up business.
The coverage of what’s happening in Chicago is confusing. There have been stories complaining about immigration seizures at Millennium Park. There were similar complaints in LA (“Not our parks!”) Describing parks as no-ICE zones is just going to make it easier for ICE to make stops in parks. Chicago PD has already said they can’t arrest federal law enforcement officers.
But the signs going up say that this property can’t be used as a staging area, processing location or operations base. That doesn’t say anything about arrests. The Mayor mentioned a recent raid on an apartment building in which all of the residents were taken outside in the middle of the night, questioned in trucks on the street, and 37 were led to a school parking lot across the street, placed in vans and presumably driven to a federal facility. Some not taken were fitted with ankle monitors. The video put together by DHS shows officers taking those being transported through a fence that’s been cut.
The use of the school parking lot is probably the least interesting thing about all of that. The staging and processing appeared to have happened in the city streets around the apartment. More interesting is that locals described the Chicago PD as helping block and direct traffic in support of the operation. That would appear to be illegal under state law, but I think involving local law enforcement generally helps minimize local impacts of an operation.
I can’t tell whether temporary use of the school parking lot was necessary to safely effectuate the operation. If it wasn’t available, they could just have used blocked off streets, or the church parking lot on the other side of the school parking lot. Did the police know the parking lot was being used? Did they suggest it? They are required to report their communications with immigration officials.
I’m more concerned about DHS heavy-handed tactics. I’m not sure of the legality of everything that’s going on, but I hope there are lawsuits to challenge the validity of some of these detentions and the way they are being conducted.
@Andy, I think there are two main legal issues with the apartment raid. First, to the extent law enforcement damaged property, the Fifth Amendment requires them to compensate. I don’t know whether they cut the school’s fence or not, but it’s use during the raid makes it likely. Also, apartment doors were knocked down, maybe some other things in the building damaged. But it looks like the apartment was a slum with electrical and plumbing issues, and management threw people’s belongings out the next day. I don’t know if that suggests they were squatting, or maybe they were paying cash to stay, but once public attention was drawn to the uninhabitable building, management treated them as squatters.
The other main issue is that there were African-American residents detained who seem highly unlikely to have been foreign nationals, and at most should have been detained briefly to confirm that. There may be other circumstances that aren’t public. Two gang members of Tren de Aragua wanted for drug and arms trafficking were arrested, and may explain Chicago PDs involvement. But as immigration matter they were probably detained too long. Remedies may not exist though. Most, if not all, of this type of civil rights litigation is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which only governs state and local officials.
Again, maybe PD could comment, but your understanding of eminent domain is not mine. Eminent domain pertains to property ownership for which the federal govt must show due cause. The anti-commandeering principle should hold.
Query- Should the mayor/governor prioritize the safety/needs of its own citizens?
Steve