UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the federal government’s lawsuit seeking an emergency injunction to bar California election officials from counting federal ballots cast next month by about 20,000 individuals the United States suspects are noncitizens, situating it among the Trump administration’s broader efforts to intervene in state administration of the midterm elections. Professor Amar argues that the suit is likely to fail because the federal ban on noncitizen voting can rest only on Congress’ immigration power, which the anti-commandeering principle of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States limits, so the federal government cannot compel California to investigate and set aside suspected noncitizens’ ballots, and neither its preemption nor its aiding-and-abetting theory, nor the request for relief so close to an election, changes that result.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar critiques a federal district court ruling upholding New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), which limits civil arrests by ICE near court proceedings, framing it as a significant constitutional conflict between state law and federal immigration enforcement. Professor Amar argues that Judge D’Agostino’s ruling misunderstands basic constitutional principles—especially the Supremacy Clause—and wrongly treats regulation of federal agents as a permissible exercise of state sovereignty, making the decision likely to be overturned on appeal.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the constitutional principles governing federal-state relations in the context of recent immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, specifically addressing what states can and cannot do regarding federal immigration operations, and what powers the federal government retains. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while states cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement (following the anti-commandeering doctrine), they also cannot discriminate against or obstruct federal operations, and the President has inherent constitutional authority to deploy federal forces to protect federal personnel and property without requiring state permission.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar contrasts Florida’s recent enactment of one of the strictest measures in the country to prohibit state and local entities from becoming “sanctuary” jurisdictions with California’s pro-sanctuary state laws. Amar explains this autonomy of states to enact such different laws with respect to federal laws as a product of the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine the Supreme Court has applied in three major cases over the past quarter century.