August 11, 2025 • 14 mins
August 11, 2025- New York is fighting back against federal efforts to access state immigration information and interfere at state courthouses, citing the "sovereign rights" of the state. We explore this argument and its history with Sarah Rogerson, director of the Edward P. Swyer Justice Center at Albany Law School.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump's administration has
faced numerous lawsuits from blue states, including challenges from New
York's Attorney General Letitia James, which he has joined or led,
which revolve around the so called sovereign rights of states
to have domain over certain issues, with this claim popping
up in lawsuits dealing with ICE activity at state courthouses,
as well as shielding immigration information on New Yorker's applying
(00:26):
for food stamps. To discuss this sovereign rights claim, we're
joined in the Capitol press room by Sarah Rogerson, director
of the Edward P. Swier Justice Center, which serves as
the Albany Law School's de facto in house public interest
law firm. Welcome to the show, Sarah, thanks for having
me so. This summer, the USA Department of Agriculture told
states that to keep funding for SNAP, they would have
(00:48):
to turn over information on the immigration status of applicants.
In defending New York's resistance to handing this information over
and keep getting federal funds for SNAP, A g. Tis
James argue that the decision was within the sovereign rights
of the state. Before we get into this specific example,
what exactly are sovereign rights and how have they been
(01:10):
cited in the past to maybe defend the rights of states.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
States rights are complicated and have a complicated history because
a lot of Civil War right well, and not just
Civil War, but the Civil Rights era right states rights
were asserted in order to resist federal attempts to expand
rights to individuals, and so it's a unique thing in
(01:35):
immigration laws. There are books being written about it every day,
but in general it's called the new immigration federalism, where
federal government has what's called plenary power or kind of
like occupies the field of immigration, but Congress can delegate
certain powers to the state and has when it comes
(01:56):
to the enforcement of immigration law, which raises all all
of these issues because Donald Trump is using a lot
of these levers, which by code arguably he is allowed
to do. That's part of the brokenness of our immigration system.
But states can resist by saying, well, actually, you know,
you've delegated parts of this to us, and we have
(02:18):
the right to administer it the way that we choose.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
And how have we seen that play out, maybe in
more recent history than say the Civil Rights era, we've.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Seen it in restrictionist eras where states were trying to
reduce immigration rights, cases like Hazelton in Pennsylvania, where they
were trying to restrict the ability of undocumented immigrants to
rent apartment buildings, and those cases, and then some listeners
might remember Sheriff are Pyo in Arizona who was really
(02:49):
working hard to limit the rights of immigrants at the
border in Arizona and in the interior of the state.
And so those cases went up on numerous appeals, and
we're litigated up and down the federal court system, and
essentially the rulings were against restricting rights for immigrants. You
(03:09):
can expand rights for immigrants like New York has done,
like California has done, like other states are doing currently,
but you can't pull them back or narrow them further
than what the federal government has already limited them at.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, then let's talk about the example of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance program, which is not eligible or open for
undocumented immigrants, but if you are, say a documented refugee
or an asylum seeker, you are eligible to participate. So
why does New York State, if we are to believe
the argument from the state's attorney general, have the right
(03:46):
to refuse handing over information on who's participating based on
immigration status to the federal government.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Immigration status is not relevant to whether or not people
need to eat, which is really I mean, it's not
benefits basic nutrition.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
But it is a rule for participation in the program.
So if I am the federal government and I'm paying
the vast majority of this benefit, don't I want to
know that the state is only allowing eligible participants to
take advantage of it.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Sure, but I don't think that handing over the immigration
status of participants is the way to do that necessarily.
And it's a false flag really because there's a limited
number of immigrants who are eligible for well, I should
say immigrant families who are eligible for snap benefits. What
this is really doing is targeting US citizen children who
(04:36):
have immigrant parents, because it's the kids who are eligible
for the benefits.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And just interrupted are you making a inference that the
real reason they're asking for this information is because then
they can make a leap about the documentation status of
these parents and then make it easier to go after them.
Is that what you're alleging, And the Trumpet Ministry it
hasn't said that's why they're doing it, ever, went, And
so if I'm a judge and I'm having to wade
(05:06):
into this now because there's a lawsuit, what's my ability
to try to make inferences about why the Trump administration
is using this. Can I look at the track record,
the fact patterns, so to speak, and ascribe motives or
do I have to take the federal officials at their
word for their efforts to root out malfeasance and waste.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Adjudicators do look at statements made by governments when they
implement a policy. But here we have where certain things
are delegated to the states to administer. It's up to
the states to determine how to administer those things. I
guess in Layman's terms, it's sort of like a how
far can the Trump administration micro manage its federal benefits programs?
(05:49):
And so there's another layer of state rights at play here,
and that's state constitutional rights. Okay, So New York State
has a lot more protections than other states when it
comes to the rights of all kinds of people, including immigrants.
We have a number of protections. We were one of
the first states to protect our state courts from being
(06:12):
raided by federal immigration officials without a warrant or without
a legitimate cause to be there.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Is that in the state constitution or in statue.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
It's in statutes. It's called the Protect Our Courts Act
that was enacted towards the end of the first Trump administration.
It's currently being challenged by the Federal Department of Justice.
So the Trump administration is coming after New York for
asserting state sovereignty over state courts which they explicitly have
jurisdiction over. It will be very interesting to see what
(06:42):
happens there because a lot of the stuff is unprecedented.
Court Houses, hospitals, schools, all these places used to be
covered by what was called the Sensitive Locations Memo, which
goes back decades.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
So when we think about the idea of sovereign rights
as they pertain to, say, the administration of snap benefits
and holding back immigration information, do the sovereign rights also
maybe expand to something like medicate eligibility, something that's administered
by the state. If the Trump administration says, and you know,
(07:17):
they do want to have stricter work requirements, can the
states say, well, we're not handing over proof that we
check their work requirement paperwork, and we don't have to
because of sovereign rights. Is that another application of this
or is immigration status kind of unique here?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I think what will be argued Because all of this
is being argued right, and there are so many nuances,
it's hard to make blanket statements, but I'll try to
highlight a few tensions here, and one is that on
the state side, I think states like New York understand
that the real motivation here is to deport as many
(07:56):
people as possible. Now, the Trump administration has been on
the record saying that right the state's interest in administering
snap benefits is to feed people. So the stated purpose
for asking for the release of this specific information is
not in alignment with the purpose of the program to
begin with.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Although they would say it is in line with it
because we don't want to potentially waste money on undocument impigrants.
We want to make sure all the legal immigrants and
all the American born people are getting fed. Theoretically in
that scarcity agenda.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yeah, well, and it is an agenda, so I'm glad
you use that word, but statistically it doesn't play out
that that's something that's actually happening in this country. There's
also the state also has an argument about not gathering
information status so that in the event that they're asked,
they don't have to hand it over, And that can
(08:50):
happen for programs where immigration status is not necessary to
obtain the benefit.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Although they do collect it in this case with SNAP,
if they have to out the people are ineligible.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I would say they have to make sure that anyone
who receives it is eligible, as opposed to trying to
find a needle in a haystack. But we've seen this
in the criminal context in New York State. New York
State has tried to protect its citizenry writ large by
reducing ice access to information regarding the immigration status of
(09:27):
people involved in the criminal justice system, which isn't just
defendants accused of crimes. It includes victims, it includes witnesses,
it includes children. And so when we're talking about state sovereignty,
the state will be I imagine, asserting lots of legitimate policy
(09:48):
reasons for why their position is correct, and then the
federal government will argue their policy reasons why their position
is correct, and.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Then the law.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
There will be a lot of precedents set in these
conversations in the courts about what's properly with the states,
was properly with the Feds, and how that relationship can
be negotiated between state governments and federal governments. There's another
layer here. I just have to add another We're like
up to it like a seven layer cake here. But
there's the administrative state. So there's also the big hero
(10:22):
of the immigrants rights advocacy groups. Under the first Trump
administration was the Administrative Procedure Act, which many people had
never heard of until then. But that's literally like how
governments implement how the federal government implements its laws through
administrative agencies who are delegated by statute to enact implementing
(10:43):
regulations which give the rules for implementing these programs. And
there's all these rules, and it makes sense. It's like
a check on big government, which is another thing that
conservative groups allegedly stand for right and so the administrative
state is supposed to be the checks and balances to
(11:04):
make sure that government is administered properly. And when that's
a conversation between the federal government and the state government,
there are regulations that the federal government has to follow
if it wants to restrict state action unless they go
to Congress and get additional permission, and all of this
could be fixed if Congress would do something. On immigration.
(11:24):
Congress has all the power right now, I mean Congress
and the President and the Attorney General, because it's set
up that way.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
So do you believe the conservative majority on the Supreme
Court will ultimately find a way contrary to what their
conservative forerunners might have argued sixty one hundred hundred and
fifty years ago, that sovereign rights don't apply here and
that the national government has some sort of interest in
(11:56):
obtaining this information. And if they do argue that is
that a big precedent setting ruling.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
So very little of what the Supreme Court does. I
don't want to minimize what the Supreme Court does, but
they don't issue edicts that say, okay, now we know now,
we know that this is on the state side and
this is on the federal side, especially in immigration. What
they tend to do is, especially the conservative majority, is
(12:24):
make sure that the power of the executive is retained,
and any time they can punt to any other, any
other branch of government, they do. So. Anytime something is
within Congress's power to change or fix, it's very easy
for them to say, you know, the electorate. The electorate
has decided who makes the laws in this country, and
(12:45):
they need to solve this dispute. So I think we
can expect to see rulings that preserve executive power. We've seen,
for example, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has
been litigated since it was implemented, and that was under
the Obama administration thirteen fourteen years ago. So that particular
(13:08):
immigration program which was implemented by executive order, right that
was not Congress, that was executive order. That has been
litigated for more than a decade now, and the Supreme
Court hasn't said terminate the program. They rule on these
margins and on these edges, and what they do is
(13:29):
they make rulings in order to preserve that executive power.
Because that's sort of like where they are right now.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Well, unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave things there. We've
been speaking with Sarah Rogerson. They're the director of the
Edward P. Swire Justice Center, which serves as the Albany
Law School's de facto in house public interest law firm. Sarah,
thanks for visiting us in the studio, Thanks for having me,
and for more Capital Pressroom content visit Capitol Pressroom dot org,
(13:56):
or wherever you download your favorite podcasts
Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump's administration has
faced numerous lawsuits from blue states, including challenges from New
York's Attorney General Letitia James, which he has joined or led,
which revolve around the so called sovereign rights of states
to have domain over certain issues, with this claim popping
up in lawsuits dealing with ICE activity at state courthouses,
as well as shielding immigration information on New Yorker's applying
(00:26):
for food stamps. To discuss this sovereign rights claim, we're
joined in the Capitol press room by Sarah Rogerson, director
of the Edward P. Swier Justice Center, which serves as
the Albany Law School's de facto in house public interest
law firm. Welcome to the show, Sarah, thanks for having
me so. This summer, the USA Department of Agriculture told
states that to keep funding for SNAP, they would have
(00:48):
to turn over information on the immigration status of applicants.
In defending New York's resistance to handing this information over
and keep getting federal funds for SNAP, A g. Tis
James argue that the decision was within the sovereign rights
of the state. Before we get into this specific example,
what exactly are sovereign rights and how have they been
(01:10):
cited in the past to maybe defend the rights of states.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
States rights are complicated and have a complicated history because
a lot of Civil War right well, and not just
Civil War, but the Civil Rights era right states rights
were asserted in order to resist federal attempts to expand
rights to individuals, and so it's a unique thing in
(01:35):
immigration laws. There are books being written about it every day,
but in general it's called the new immigration federalism, where
federal government has what's called plenary power or kind of
like occupies the field of immigration, but Congress can delegate
certain powers to the state and has when it comes
(01:56):
to the enforcement of immigration law, which raises all all
of these issues because Donald Trump is using a lot
of these levers, which by code arguably he is allowed
to do. That's part of the brokenness of our immigration system.
But states can resist by saying, well, actually, you know,
you've delegated parts of this to us, and we have
(02:18):
the right to administer it the way that we choose.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
And how have we seen that play out, maybe in
more recent history than say the Civil Rights era, we've.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Seen it in restrictionist eras where states were trying to
reduce immigration rights, cases like Hazelton in Pennsylvania, where they
were trying to restrict the ability of undocumented immigrants to
rent apartment buildings, and those cases, and then some listeners
might remember Sheriff are Pyo in Arizona who was really
(02:49):
working hard to limit the rights of immigrants at the
border in Arizona and in the interior of the state.
And so those cases went up on numerous appeals, and
we're litigated up and down the federal court system, and
essentially the rulings were against restricting rights for immigrants. You
(03:09):
can expand rights for immigrants like New York has done,
like California has done, like other states are doing currently,
but you can't pull them back or narrow them further
than what the federal government has already limited them at.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, then let's talk about the example of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance program, which is not eligible or open for
undocumented immigrants, but if you are, say a documented refugee
or an asylum seeker, you are eligible to participate. So
why does New York State, if we are to believe
the argument from the state's attorney general, have the right
(03:46):
to refuse handing over information on who's participating based on
immigration status to the federal government.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Immigration status is not relevant to whether or not people
need to eat, which is really I mean, it's not
benefits basic nutrition.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
But it is a rule for participation in the program.
So if I am the federal government and I'm paying
the vast majority of this benefit, don't I want to
know that the state is only allowing eligible participants to
take advantage of it.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Sure, but I don't think that handing over the immigration
status of participants is the way to do that necessarily.
And it's a false flag really because there's a limited
number of immigrants who are eligible for well, I should
say immigrant families who are eligible for snap benefits. What
this is really doing is targeting US citizen children who
(04:36):
have immigrant parents, because it's the kids who are eligible
for the benefits.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And just interrupted are you making a inference that the
real reason they're asking for this information is because then
they can make a leap about the documentation status of
these parents and then make it easier to go after them.
Is that what you're alleging, And the Trumpet Ministry it
hasn't said that's why they're doing it, ever, went, And
so if I'm a judge and I'm having to wade
(05:06):
into this now because there's a lawsuit, what's my ability
to try to make inferences about why the Trump administration
is using this. Can I look at the track record,
the fact patterns, so to speak, and ascribe motives or
do I have to take the federal officials at their
word for their efforts to root out malfeasance and waste.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Adjudicators do look at statements made by governments when they
implement a policy. But here we have where certain things
are delegated to the states to administer. It's up to
the states to determine how to administer those things. I
guess in Layman's terms, it's sort of like a how
far can the Trump administration micro manage its federal benefits programs?
(05:49):
And so there's another layer of state rights at play here,
and that's state constitutional rights. Okay, So New York State
has a lot more protections than other states when it
comes to the rights of all kinds of people, including immigrants.
We have a number of protections. We were one of
the first states to protect our state courts from being
(06:12):
raided by federal immigration officials without a warrant or without
a legitimate cause to be there.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Is that in the state constitution or in statue.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
It's in statutes. It's called the Protect Our Courts Act
that was enacted towards the end of the first Trump administration.
It's currently being challenged by the Federal Department of Justice.
So the Trump administration is coming after New York for
asserting state sovereignty over state courts which they explicitly have
jurisdiction over. It will be very interesting to see what
(06:42):
happens there because a lot of the stuff is unprecedented.
Court Houses, hospitals, schools, all these places used to be
covered by what was called the Sensitive Locations Memo, which
goes back decades.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
So when we think about the idea of sovereign rights
as they pertain to, say, the administration of snap benefits
and holding back immigration information, do the sovereign rights also
maybe expand to something like medicate eligibility, something that's administered
by the state. If the Trump administration says, and you know,
(07:17):
they do want to have stricter work requirements, can the
states say, well, we're not handing over proof that we
check their work requirement paperwork, and we don't have to
because of sovereign rights. Is that another application of this
or is immigration status kind of unique here?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
I think what will be argued Because all of this
is being argued right, and there are so many nuances,
it's hard to make blanket statements, but I'll try to
highlight a few tensions here, and one is that on
the state side, I think states like New York understand
that the real motivation here is to deport as many
(07:56):
people as possible. Now, the Trump administration has been on
the record saying that right the state's interest in administering
snap benefits is to feed people. So the stated purpose
for asking for the release of this specific information is
not in alignment with the purpose of the program to
begin with.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Although they would say it is in line with it
because we don't want to potentially waste money on undocument impigrants.
We want to make sure all the legal immigrants and
all the American born people are getting fed. Theoretically in
that scarcity agenda.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yeah, well, and it is an agenda, so I'm glad
you use that word, but statistically it doesn't play out
that that's something that's actually happening in this country. There's
also the state also has an argument about not gathering
information status so that in the event that they're asked,
they don't have to hand it over, And that can
(08:50):
happen for programs where immigration status is not necessary to
obtain the benefit.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Although they do collect it in this case with SNAP,
if they have to out the people are ineligible.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I would say they have to make sure that anyone
who receives it is eligible, as opposed to trying to
find a needle in a haystack. But we've seen this
in the criminal context in New York State. New York
State has tried to protect its citizenry writ large by
reducing ice access to information regarding the immigration status of
(09:27):
people involved in the criminal justice system, which isn't just
defendants accused of crimes. It includes victims, it includes witnesses,
it includes children. And so when we're talking about state sovereignty,
the state will be I imagine, asserting lots of legitimate policy
(09:48):
reasons for why their position is correct, and then the
federal government will argue their policy reasons why their position
is correct, and.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Then the law.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
There will be a lot of precedents set in these
conversations in the courts about what's properly with the states,
was properly with the Feds, and how that relationship can
be negotiated between state governments and federal governments. There's another
layer here. I just have to add another We're like
up to it like a seven layer cake here. But
there's the administrative state. So there's also the big hero
(10:22):
of the immigrants rights advocacy groups. Under the first Trump
administration was the Administrative Procedure Act, which many people had
never heard of until then. But that's literally like how
governments implement how the federal government implements its laws through
administrative agencies who are delegated by statute to enact implementing
(10:43):
regulations which give the rules for implementing these programs. And
there's all these rules, and it makes sense. It's like
a check on big government, which is another thing that
conservative groups allegedly stand for right and so the administrative
state is supposed to be the checks and balances to
(11:04):
make sure that government is administered properly. And when that's
a conversation between the federal government and the state government,
there are regulations that the federal government has to follow
if it wants to restrict state action unless they go
to Congress and get additional permission, and all of this
could be fixed if Congress would do something. On immigration.
(11:24):
Congress has all the power right now, I mean Congress
and the President and the Attorney General, because it's set
up that way.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
So do you believe the conservative majority on the Supreme
Court will ultimately find a way contrary to what their
conservative forerunners might have argued sixty one hundred hundred and
fifty years ago, that sovereign rights don't apply here and
that the national government has some sort of interest in
(11:56):
obtaining this information. And if they do argue that is
that a big precedent setting ruling.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
So very little of what the Supreme Court does. I
don't want to minimize what the Supreme Court does, but
they don't issue edicts that say, okay, now we know now,
we know that this is on the state side and
this is on the federal side, especially in immigration. What
they tend to do is, especially the conservative majority, is
(12:24):
make sure that the power of the executive is retained,
and any time they can punt to any other, any
other branch of government, they do. So. Anytime something is
within Congress's power to change or fix, it's very easy
for them to say, you know, the electorate. The electorate
has decided who makes the laws in this country, and
(12:45):
they need to solve this dispute. So I think we
can expect to see rulings that preserve executive power. We've seen,
for example, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has
been litigated since it was implemented, and that was under
the Obama administration thirteen fourteen years ago. So that particular
(13:08):
immigration program which was implemented by executive order, right that
was not Congress, that was executive order. That has been
litigated for more than a decade now, and the Supreme
Court hasn't said terminate the program. They rule on these
margins and on these edges, and what they do is
(13:29):
they make rulings in order to preserve that executive power.
Because that's sort of like where they are right now.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Well, unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave things there. We've
been speaking with Sarah Rogerson. They're the director of the
Edward P. Swire Justice Center, which serves as the Albany
Law School's de facto in house public interest law firm. Sarah,
thanks for visiting us in the studio, Thanks for having me,
and for more Capital Pressroom content visit Capitol Pressroom dot org,
(13:56):
or wherever you download your favorite podcasts
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.