Our Work

The Trump Administration has repeatedly suggested that it could try to deploy ICE, the FBI, or troops to voting sites during upcoming federal elections, even though federal law criminally prohibits sending armed agents to the polls. Even if the federal government declines to enforce those laws, this Report highlights some ways for states to potentially halt any federal deployment in real-time: specifically, suits for injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, and/or an ultra vires or non-statutory suit. The Report walks through the various components of a potential lawsuit, explaining how states may rely on federal courts’ broad authority to halt illegal government action through their equitable powers, even if the only directly applicable federal statutes are criminal prohibitions.

Last month, New York Governor Kathy Hochul stood alongside New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a press conference in Manhattan. The purpose: to announce $7.25 million in new legal aid for unaccompanied immigrant children and to reaffirm a state law barring local police from formal cooperation agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The event was an illustration of a broader pattern in modern American federalism: a governor using her office’s visibility, funding authority, and legal tools to push back against perceived federal overreach or abuses of power.

"Fulton County Commission Chair Robb Pitts received a startling phone call in his office on Jan. 28. FBI agents were at the county’s elections hub. He knew it was about the 2020 election but wondered what possibly could be going on."

"Number 29 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy, returning to the topic (also treated in June) of state and local preparations for last-minute disruptions and federal interference in the midterm elections." (References SDRI Research).

"The midterm elections in November will be the final test before the 2028 presidential race of whether states can hold the line against any illegal attempts by the Trump administration to interfere at polls or intimidate voters. State officials have not taken that test lightly."

"When Gov. Maura Healy signed the PROTECT Act in Chelsea last week, she called it the strongest law in the country to protect people against the “dangerous” tactics of President Trump’s federal immigration enforcement actions." (References SDRI Research).

"Glenwood Springs City Council members voted Thursday to sue the owner of the building where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is running a short-term detention facility in violation of city zoning rules, hoping to avoid a more risky legal confrontation with the federal government as it attempts to stop the operation."

On August 5, the State Democracy Research Initiative’s faculty co-directors, Miriam Seifter and Rob Yablon, filed an amicus brief with 5 other legal scholars in United States v. New York et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars three provisions of New York’s Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act that seek to limit disclosure of sensitive state data for immigration enforcement purposes. The federal government sued, arguing that New York’s policies were preempted by federal law and violated the judge-made doctrine of “intergovernmental immunity.” DOJ has made similar arguments in a range of recent cases.

On July 30, SDRI Legal Director Danielle Friedman spoke with Bob Bauer on Executive Functions. They discussed state criminal statutes that could apply to federal deployment of military or ICE and examine the limits of executive authority in the context of potential federal interference ahead of the November midterms.

"The federal government is suing the city of Milwaukee over its ordinance preventing law enforcement officers from wearing masks. The lawsuit, filed July 23 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, calls the ordinance "blatant unconstitutional regulation of the Federal Government." The lawsuit argues that the city's ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which says that if local and federal law are in conflict, federal law takes precedence. The mask ordinance stemmed from Milwaukee Common Council members trying to take a stand against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who have operated in the city with masks covering their faces." (References SDRI Research).