When Sanctuary Becomes Obstruction: Why Federal Authority Cannot Stand DownSanctuary policies were once framed as passive noncooperation. In Minnesota, they have evolved into something more dangerous. When state and city leaders encourage resistance to federal law enforcement, the Constitution leaves the federal government with no lawful option but to act.The Last Wire Editorial OpinionThe Insurrection Act is often portrayed as an emergency power reserved for the outer edges of national crisis. That framing is comforting, and it is wrong. The Act exists for a narrowly defined constitutional failure mode. The moment when the laws of the United States cannot be enforced because state and local authorities have chosen noncooperation and have encouraged public obstruction.
That moment has arrived in Minnesota.
Sanctuary by Policy, Obstruction by DesignThis is not an argument about protest or political disagreement. Protest is protected. Disagreement over policy is inevitable in a large republic. The issue raised here is enforcement. Specifically, whether federal law can still be enforced through ordinary judicial proceedings when those with local authority have withdrawn cooperation and signaled to the public that obstruction is acceptable.
The Constitution does not permit federal law to become optional by geography.
Sanctuary state and city policies already compel the federal government to discharge its constitutional duty to enforce immigration law without assistance from local authorities. Federal agencies are forced to operate without information sharing, without logistical coordination, and without the assumption that local officials will permit enforcement to occur. This is not neutrality. It is adversarial noncooperation.
Continue reading at The Last Wire
