Top Stories

Opinion Trump’s policy of “trusted travelers” in New York is unconstitutional

The Department of Homeland Security recently decided to prevent New Yorkers from federal programs that allow “trusted travelers” to cross quickly through airports and border checkpoints. The Trump administration defends the decision as a rational response to New York’s enactment of a law that deprives federal immigration authorities of free access to state vehicle records. In fact, the ministry’s decision is the sharp retaliation for people residing in a state that refuses to adhere to the administration’s immigration priorities. Whatever its virtues or vices, the decision offends constitutional rules that are neither liberal nor conservative but American only.

New York has never wasted a federal case to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from moving. The state’s lawsuit raises a number of process-based objections, and seeks to capitalize on the legal doctrines usually associated with right-wing judges. But he misses an opportunity to base the case more fundamentally, on principles based on personal responsibility and refusing to punish people for the sins of others.

New York Argues The ministry’s move was hasty and arbitrary and places unjustified and irrational pressure on the state to cooperate with federal authorities by exchanging data that they say they need to protect the nation while facilitating travel. The state’s arguments have some strength, but its purposes may have a limited appeal to judges who have executive power in immigration matters and are allegedly involved in national security. Moreover, federal courts may sympathize across the ideological spectrum of management Demands Accelerated transport software cannot be managed safely without accessing uniquely available personal information through government vehicle records.

The state may be better off with its federalist arguments: it objects to the use of national force to influence state legislation. Here, New York is armed with the opinion of the Supreme Court of 2018 in Murphy vs the National Team Sports Association, Which repealed the federal law that categorically prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. In that case, the court held that federal law was a prohibited form of federal appropriation of the state’s legislature.

But it is unclear that the measure posed by the New York challenges is very similar to this Other cases As the Supreme Court declared that federal legislative rulings are unconstitutional because of the demands it made on the states. Not worrying for progressives, relying on a set of precedents rooted in state rights can bolster the recent conservative faith in ways that may limit future federal authority to enact national policy on vital issues such as climate change or health care reform.

Fortunately, those who object to the Department of Homeland Security’s decision do not need to invoke controversial legal concepts to prove constitutional flaws. Although constitutional law does not always follow ordinary moral intuition, it is an example of this. The most important principles of integrity and due process, and principles are neither liberal nor conservative, tell us that individuals should never be punished Things they did not do This is exactly what the Department of Homeland Security is doing here.

The Department of Homeland Security indiscriminately punishes New Yorkers – both those who have been directly denied a rapid transit and who are directly affected by the accompanying economic and social consequences – for the actions of lawmakers in Albany. By doing so, the administration not only violates some technical legal doctrine, but also violates an ancient and intuitive principle that is subject to almost any decent system of laws.

This central and intuitive principle of justice is firmly rooted in the federal constitutional doctrine. Its effect is evident, for example, in Player v. Du, A 1982 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the Texas law barring unregistered children from accessing the state’s free public education system. In this case, the court summoned that “even if the state finds it appropriate to control adult behavior by working against their children, the legislation that directs the burden of a parent’s misconduct against his or her children is inconsistent with the basic concepts of justice.”

The same logic applies here. Even if the Department of Homeland Security finds it appropriate to control the behavior of the New York Legislative Council by working against its constituents – denying them access to federal programs at airports and border crossings anywhere in the country simply because they reside in the state – doing so in engagements with basic concepts of justice.

They may be urged that the state’s residents are not without influence on the lawmakers voting and who in theory represent them. But one does not need to ridicule a representative democracy for recognizing the limits of that idea. For one reason, much of the damage that the Department of Homeland Security does in visiting these residents of New York targets people who are not eligible to vote there, either because they are undocumented immigrants or because they hold green cards. For something else, it is clear that al-Qaeda cannot distinguish between those who voted for the legislators who support the state’s law opposed by the administration and those who voted against them. Finally, even those who voted for the legislators responsible for enacting the state law in question may have done so for reasons not entirely related to the sharing of information by the automobile division.

Although we hope that this example of President Trump’s retaliatory behavior will be eliminated after the dismissal by an independent federal judiciary, we should not lose sight of this other dangerous president Acts of reprisals, which may lack readily available judicial remedies. With the final referendum on the chaos imposed by the president just 10 months away, citizens should take note of the extent to which Mr Trump is ready to punish anyone who is not embracing his political agenda – and even those who may embrace that agenda but happen to them are on his way.

Lawrence H. Tribe (tribelaw) Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and co-author, recently, on “Ending the Presidency: The Power of Accountability.”

The Times is committed to publishing Variety of messages To the editor. We would like to hear your opinion on this or any of our articles. Here are some Tips. Here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow the New York Times opinion section Facebook social networking site, Twitter (NYTopinion) And Instagram.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button