Sanctuary Cities Upheld as Constitutional, Moral Imperative

Ilya Somin argues sanctuary policies are protected by the 10th Amendment and justified on moral and pragmatic grounds.

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a Dispatch Debate, Ilya Somin defends sanctuary cities and states, arguing that the 10th Amendment protects them from federal compulsion and that their policies are morally and pragmatically justified, especially given the cruelty and illegality of many federal immigration enforcement efforts. Somin contends sanctuary jurisdictions merely deny federal officials the aid of state employees and resources, which is distinct from the nullification of federal laws.

Why it matters

Sanctuary cities and states have been a major focus of political conflict in the second Trump administration, with the federal government attempting to coerce these jurisdictions into assisting with immigration enforcement. Somin's defense of sanctuary policies on constitutional and moral grounds is significant, as it challenges the Trump administration's efforts to undermine these local and state-level protections.

The details

Somin argues the 10th Amendment bars federal 'commandeering' of state and local government personnel and resources, including forcing them to help enforce federal law. Key Supreme Court rulings, such as New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and Murphy v. NCAA, have upheld the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been used to block Trump's attempts to coerce sanctuary cities. Somin also contends the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse, so the executive cannot attach its own conditions to federal grants to states.

  • In January 2025, President Trump began his second term.
  • In November 2025, ProPublica found around 170 cases of illegal detention of U.S. citizens by federal immigration authorities since Trump's return to office.

The players

Ilya Somin

A professor of law at George Mason University and a contributor to The Dispatch, Somin is a prominent legal scholar who specializes in constitutional law, property rights, and the role of knowledge in public policy.

Donald Trump

The 45th President of the United States, who served two terms from 2017 to 2025 and made cracking down on sanctuary cities a key part of his immigration agenda.

Jacob Frey

The mayor of Minneapolis, who has stated that the job of the city's police is to keep people safe, not enforce federal immigration laws.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The job of our police is to keep people safe, not enforce fed immigration laws. I want them preventing homicides, not hunting down a working dad who contributes to [Minneapolis] & is from Ecuador.”

— Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis

What’s next

A federal district court recently refused to grant Minnesota a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's efforts to coerce the state and local governments into giving up their sanctuary policies by sending thousands of armed federal agents to the state. However, Somin argues there is still a 10th Amendment violation, as trying to coerce states at the literal point of a gun is even more egregious than doing so through other means.

The takeaway

Somin's defense of sanctuary cities and states on constitutional and moral grounds challenges the Trump administration's efforts to undermine these local and state-level protections. His argument that sanctuary policies are distinct from the nullification of federal laws and are justified given the cruelty and illegality of many federal immigration enforcement efforts is significant in the ongoing debate over the role of sanctuary jurisdictions.