State governors occupy a constitutionally significant role as chief executives of their states, yet they operate within a federalist structure in which federal law is supreme. While the anti-commandeering doctrine shields states from being conscripted into enforcing federal programs, it does not authorize governors to obstruct federal law enforcement. This article explores the constitutional and statutory limits on gubernatorial defiance of federal law enforcement, identifies remedies available to the federal government, and analyzes the risks—both legal and political—associated with such defiance.
Several state and local jurisdictions have adopted policies that limit their cooperation with federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. These states and municipalities have been referred to as sanctuary areas; it’s noteworthy to note the absence of an agreement on how the term applies, if at all, to a particular entity.[1] The U.S. Constitution establishes a clear hierarchy of authority through the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), which declares federal law, treaties, and the Constitution itself as the “supreme Law of the Land.” This foundational principle means that state governors cannot nullify, obstruct, or actively interfere with federal law enforcement efforts, as states lack the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional or unenforceable on their own. This principle is being tested.
The Tenth Amendment, however, and the anti-commandeering doctrine offers governors some room to maneuver: while the federal government cannot force state officials to enforce federal regulatory programs and use state resources to effectuate, states must avoid actively hindering federal operations. This delicate balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy shapes the legal boundaries governors face when considering defiance, as well as the potential consequences and risks of such actions.
Legal Limits on Gubernatorial Defiance
Governors are constrained by several key principles rooted in constitutional law. First, they cannot use state resources or authorities to block federal law enforcement. A question could enquires what resources are states using to obstruct the federal government? For instance, states are prohibited from taxing or regulating federal operations in ways that undermine them, a principle established in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose taxes on a national bank, as such actions would elevate state power over federal authority, violating the Supremacy Clause. Similarly, Ableman v. Booth (1859) clarified that state courts cannot interfere with federal enforcement, such as by releasing prisoners held under federal law, reinforcing that governors cannot use state judicial power to obstruct federal agents.
The ‘anti-commandeering doctrine’ further defines these limits. Governors can refuse to implement federal mandates, such as declining to use state police for federal background checks, as upheld in Printz v. United States (1997), which struck down provisions of the Brady Act that required local sheriffs to perform federal gun checks. Likewise, New York v. United States (1992) invalidated federal mandates forcing states to manage radioactive waste, affirming that Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures.
However, this autonomy does not extend to active interference; governors cannot prevent federal officials from acting independently. Cases like Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn. (1981) and FERC v. Mississippi (1982) further clarify that while states can opt out of federal programs without penalty, they cannot block federal implementation. Additionally, Edgar v. MITE Corp. (1982) established that state actions conflicting with federal objectives, such as securities laws, are preempted if they make compliance impossible or obstruct federal goals.
The scope of state authority also limits governors, particularly in areas like immigration, border control, and interstate commerce, which are federal domains. While states can regulate locally, any actions that conflict with federal policy are invalid, as seen in historical and modern examples of defiance.[2]
Examples of Defiance
One of the most prominent historical examples of gubernatorial defiance occurred during the 1957 Little Rock crisis, when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus attempted to block federal desegregation orders mandated by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court rejected Faubus’s actions, affirming that the Supremacy Clause binds all state actors, including governors, to federal rulings. President Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Arkansas National Guard and deploying federal troops to enforce desegregation, illustrating the federal government’s authority to override state resistance. A dicey past indeed.
More recently, in 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have engaged in high-profile acts of defiance, particularly in response to federal immigration and public safety policies under the second Trump administration. Newsom signed the “No Secret Police Act” in September 2025, prohibiting most law enforcement officers, including federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, from wearing masks or facial coverings while on duty. Governor Newsom’s measure countering the executive branch’s immigration enforcement measures, seeks to impede federal immigration operations by exposing agents’ identities and limiting their undercover work. Seeking to impede will be problematic for governors.
California is the first state to enact such restrictions amid a reported surge in assaults on ICE officers.[3] Federal officials consider these measures unconstitutional, suggesting challenges under the Supremacy Clause, as they could lead to arrests of masked federal agents. Newsom has also pursued lawsuits against federal immigration enforcement, escalating tensions amid reports of riots defying ICE in California.
Similarly, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has accused the administration of potential “invasions” of the state, and vowed to file lawsuits to block them, framing the moves as “nefarious” and aimed at “terror and cruelty.” Coordinating with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Pritzker has mobilized local leaders to resist federal troops, particularly amid violent incidents at ICE facilities. These actions echo historical federal-state clashes.
Consequences of Defying Federal Law Enforcement
Governors who defy federal law enforcement face a range of consequences, enforced through judicial, executive, and legislative mechanisms. Judicially, federal courts can issue injunctions to halt state actions, declare them void under the Supremacy Clause, and hold officials in contempt, imposing fines, sanctions, or even imprisonment.[4] For example, in a pre-2025 Texas border dispute, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of federal access to remove state-installed razor wire, but Governor Greg Abbott’s continued blockade raised contempt risks. Newsom’s mask ban and Pritzker’s resistance face similar legal challenges, with federal prosecutors threatening action.
Executively, the president can deploy U.S. Marshals, federalize state National Guard units, or invoke the Insurrection Act to enforce federal law, as seen in the Little Rock crisis. In 2025, Trump’s warnings of military deployment to Chicago highlight this ongoing threat. Legislatively, Congress can condition federal funding on compliance, a tactic upheld in New York v. United States (1992), leading to significant financial penalties.[5] Criminal statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (harboring undocumented immigrants), also allow prosecution of state officials for aiding violations.[6] Beyond these, states may face lawsuits from private parties or the federal government, resulting in multimillion-dollar judgments. In extreme historical cases, like South Carolina’s 1832 tariff resistance, defiance led to political isolation and threats of military action.
Risks of Defiance
The risks of defying federal law enforcement are multifaceted. Legally, governors face personal liability for contempt, with fines up to $100,000 or jail time, as well as potential federal criminal charges for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Newsom’s mask ban, for instance, has drawn scrutiny from federal prosecutors, risking such outcomes. Politically, defiance can lead to impeachment by state legislatures, electoral backlash, or damaged national standing. While Abbott’s actions in Texas bolstered his base, they invited bipartisan criticism as a constitutional crisis. Pritzker’s feud with Trump has amplified his profile among Democrats but risks alienating moderates, while Newsom’s policies may polarize voters further, while distracting from his record as California governor.
Economically, states risk losing billions in federal grants, such as highway or education funds, straining budgets. Sanctuary policies, like those in California with budget deficit,[7] have already cost cities millions in withheld aid, and similar cuts loom for both California and Illinois in 2025. Systemically, defiance risks escalating to physical confrontations between state and federal forces, eroding public trust in institutions, or inspiring copycat resistance, potentially destabilizing federalism. The heightened tensions over immigration and crime enforcement in 2025 echo historical nullification efforts, reviving secessionist rhetoric without legal basis.
Conclusion
Governors operate within a narrow legal space when resisting federal law enforcement. Leveraging the anti-commandeering doctrine to avoid cooperation does risk consequences for active defiance. The Supremacy Clause, reinforced by cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, Cooper v. Aaron, and Printz v. United States, ensures federal authority prevails, with courts, the executive, and Congress equipped to enforce compliance. While defiance may yield short-term political gains, the legal, political, economic, and systemic risks underscore the Constitution’s prioritization of national unity over state exceptionalism. Governors must navigate these constraints carefully, balancing state sovereignty with the realities of constitutional federal power. The ‘republic’ is being stress tested, let’s pray and see.
Lorenzo Law, LLC. All rights reserved, 2025.
https://www.lorenzolawfirm.com
Note: This article contains general information only and is not intended as legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or substitute for the advice of a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
__________
[1] Congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11321.web.html
[2] Criminal Liability: Federal statutes criminalize obstruction of federal officers. See 18 U.S.C. § 111; 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 372.
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/22/despite-1000-increase-assaults-ice-officers-governor-newsom-signs-unconstitutional-Law-to-Ban-Law-Enforcement-Officer- Protections
[4] See 18 U.S.C. § 111; 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 372.
[5] Loss of Federal Funds: Congress may condition funding on compliance, subject to limits. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
[6] The Attorney General issued a memorandum on February 5, 2025, defining “sanctuary” jurisdictions as those that “refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, or willfully fail to comply with other applicable federal immigration laws.”
[7] California’s projected deficit for the 2025–26 fiscal year is $12 billion. This estimate was finalized with the budget signed in June 2025. https://californiaglobe.com/fr/may-revised-2025-2026-budget-grows-to-322-billion-with-a-12-billion-deficit/