The City of Boston has moved to dismiss a federal lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that challenges the city’s sanctuary policies. This motion, filed on Monday, argues that Boston’s Trust Act, which limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is constitutionally protected and does not conflict with federal immigration law.
The DOJ’s lawsuit, filed on September 28, 2023, targets Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu, the Boston Police Department, and Police Commissioner Michael Cox. It claims that local policies obstruct the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that the Trust Act, enacted by the City Council in 2014, restricts local police from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding civil immigration detainers while permitting collaboration on criminal matters.
In its motion to dismiss, Boston contends that the Trust Act aligns with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows but does not mandate local participation in immigration enforcement. The city’s motion emphasizes that the Trust Act is an exercise of Boston’s authority, protected by the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states and localities. The city argues that the DOJ’s interpretation of the law is “overbroad” and mischaracterizes the scope of the statutes involved.
Boston’s legal team points out that previous similar lawsuits against jurisdictions like Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County were dismissed due to a “failure to state a claim.” The motion requests that the court dismiss the DOJ’s complaint with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
The Trust Act aims to enhance public safety by ensuring that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel secure in reporting crimes and engaging with city services. The city argues that this approach has allowed local resources to focus on criminal law enforcement instead of federal immigration issues.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has criticized Boston’s policies, labeling the city “among the worst sanctuary offenders in America.” Bondi’s office contends that these policies undermine law enforcement efforts and protect undocumented immigrants from accountability.
In its defense, Boston’s motion clarifies that the Trust Act does not discriminate against the federal government. Instead, it is a neutral policy that regulates city operations without imposing limitations on federal activities. The city argues this incidental impact on federal enforcement is permissible under the Tenth Amendment.
As the legal battle unfolds, Boston’s motion to dismiss highlights the city’s commitment to maintaining its Trust Act, reinforcing its stance on local governance and the rights of its residents. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for similar sanctuary policies across the United States.
