WASHINGTON, D.C. – As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids intensified in California — a self-declared sanctuary state — protests erupted in Los Angeles and spread across the country. In the midst of this controversy, a briefing by the Prison Policy Initiative provided a timely explainer on how much authority the federal government actually has over state and local criminal justice systems.
According to the briefing, the president has significant power to shape national policy through appointments — including federal judges and cabinet-level officials like the attorney general — who are responsible for executing the administration’s agenda. That’s exactly why Democratic senators questioned whether Attorney General Pam Bondi would use her post to help then-President Trump retaliate against political enemies and justify policies that punish dissent, according to The 19th News.
While Bondi pledged to uphold the Constitution, The 19th reported that her directives to the Department of Justice signaled an aggressive political posture. She committed to “use all available criminal statutes to combat the flood of illegal immigration,” and instructed DOJ staff to “vigorously defend presidential policies and actions against legal challenges,” according to an internal memo.
During Trump’s first term, California Governor Gavin Newsom stood in defiance of the administration’s immigration enforcement campaign, reinforcing the state’s status as a sanctuary through the passage of the California Values Act (SB 54) in 2017. The law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE — including denying transfer and notification requests, and refusing to share individuals’ release dates with federal agents.
Trump repeatedly threatened to punish California for its stance. A report by Axios noted that he proposed cutting federal funds to the state — not only for sanctuary-related policies but also other progressive priorities. According to information published on the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program’s website, Trump threatened to cut food stamp and nutritional assistance funding, jeopardizing food access for millions of low-income Californians. Bondi, in multiple Fox News interviews cited by The 19th, defended these cuts by claiming sanctuary leaders “don’t care about public safety,” even going so far as to invoke racist tropes — suggesting “men of color threaten white women.”
But can the federal government do that?
The Prison Policy Initiative explained that the federal government only directly controls about 13 percent of the criminal justice system — which is otherwise governed largely by state and local law. While the president and Congress can influence state-level practices by tying federal dollars to specific policies, they cannot refuse to spend funds that have already been appropriated for designated programs like WIC or SNAP.
Where the president does have latitude is in deciding how to allocate discretionary funding and which programs to prioritize. That’s why efforts to cut off funding to states like California over policy disagreements are legally murky and often challenged in court.
The attorney general, while traditionally tasked with enforcing a president’s legal agenda, is also expected to exercise independent judgment. Bondi’s actions, according to The 19th, raised concerns about a deepening politicization of the Department of Justice — particularly when her directives appeared focused on punishing political adversaries like sanctuary jurisdictions.
In a further escalation, Trump reportedly ordered National Guard troops and even Marines to California to “protect” ICE agents, according to a report from CBS News. The administration claimed federal agents were being attacked while enforcing executive orders. However, as CBS pointed out, executive orders do not carry the same legal force as legislation passed by Congress. They merely direct federal agencies on how to interpret or implement existing laws — and their legality can be challenged.
Governor Newsom pushed back, filing a lawsuit to block the deployment. While the Supreme Court typically hears cases involving broad questions of constitutional rights — such as conditions in prisons or discriminatory bail practices — lower federal courts often address disputes over the limits of presidential power and federal-state authority.
In this case, California v. United States, Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of California, writing: “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes so. How is that any different than what a monarch does?”
But the fight isn’t over. As The Associated Press reported on June 12, a federal appeals court issued a temporary stay of Judge Breyer’s order, allowing Trump’s federal deployment to stand, pending further review. A final decision is expected Tuesday, June 17.
The unfolding conflict between state sovereignty and federal overreach — especially in the realm of criminal justice and immigration enforcement — highlights the fragility of constitutional boundaries in times of political upheaval. As the Prison Policy Initiative emphasized, knowing where federal authority ends and state authority begins is key to resisting misuse of power.
