President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is dragging two sanctuary-city governments into federal court after Portland and St. Paul tried to dictate what federal officers may wear and how they must identify themselves on the job.
DOJ filed separate lawsuits Thursday challenging local ordinances that restrict masks and impose identification requirements on federal law enforcement. The administration says those rules do more than score political points — they expose officers and their families to doxxing, harassment, and violence.
The constitutional question is blunt: can a city council control the uniforms, protective equipment, and operational decisions of officers who answer to the federal government?
The Trump administration’s answer is no.
The Justice Department says Portland and St. Paul crossed the constitutional line by applying municipal rules directly to federal officers performing duties authorized by Congress. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said the Supremacy Clause prevents states and cities from regulating the federal government and warned that DOJ will not tolerate laws that enable harassment of officers or their families.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said Washington — not a local government — decides what equipment federal officers may wear. Oregon U.S. Attorney Scott Bradford added that the people being vilified live in the same communities, send their children to local schools, and carry out dangerous work meant to keep residents safe.
The lawsuits are part of Attorney General Todd Blanche’s wider campaign against state and local policies that obstruct federal operations. DOJ says it has already pursued similar disputes in New York, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Philadelphia, Denver, and Milwaukee.
The Portland complaint says the city adopted its ordinance on May 27 even after its own lawyer warned council members that directly regulating the federal government would likely be unconstitutional. The law requires visible agency badges and permanent identifying numbers or last names on an officer’s outermost garment, bars face coverings with limited exceptions, and directs officers to identify themselves during arrests when practical and safe.
DOJ sent Mayor Keith Wilson and City Attorney Robert Taylor a warning on October 9, seeking assurance that the ordinance would not be enforced against federal officers. The government said its officers would continue using masks and withholding individual identifiers when operational circumstances required it.
Portland’s city attorney reaffirmed the city’s intent to enforce the law on October 12 and invited DOJ to litigate. The federal complaint says that discretion matters during surveillance and other sensitive work, and alleges that facial-recognition tools have already been used to identify officers online and expose information about their spouses and children.
The administration is asking a federal judge to declare Portland’s rules invalid as applied to federal officers and permanently block enforcement against them.
The St. Paul complaint targets two ordinances covering identification and face coverings. According to the filing, a federal officer who knowingly violates those provisions can face a misdemeanor conviction, a fine, imprisonment, or both — and each violation on a separate day can count as a new offense.
City council members made their target clear when the measures passed. One councilwoman said federal agents should not be allowed to operate behind masks, while another said the federal government should be embarrassed that the city had to impose the rules.
DOJ answers that local lawmakers cannot criminalize federal officers for following federal policies. The complaint points to rulings against materially similar laws in California, Virginia, Philadelphia, and New York, arguing that courts have repeatedly rejected local attempts to command federal law-enforcement operations.
St. Paul frames the ordinances as transparency and public safety. DOJ sees a city threatening prosecution against officers who conceal their faces because organized groups can photograph them, run images through facial-recognition systems, and hunt down their families online.
The practical danger sits underneath the legal language. A badge should establish lawful authority; it should not become a roadmap to an agent’s home.
Local politicians are free to criticize federal enforcement, protest administration policy, and challenge federal conduct in court. What they cannot do is seize command of federal officers through city ordinances and criminal penalties.
Trump’s Justice Department is asking judges in Oregon and Minnesota to draw that line clearly — before another officer or family member pays the price for a politician’s anti-federal crusade.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up. View the original article here.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
