States’ Rights Under Siege: The Tenth Amendment and the Federal Assault on New Jersey Sovereignty

By William N. Sosis, Esq.

When the framers of our Constitution ratified the Tenth Amendment, they enshrined into law a core principle of American federalism: that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. Today, that principle is under direct attack.

Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s announcement of a federal investigation into New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin—broadcast not from a courtroom but on national television—reflects an ominous shift in the federal-state balance. Her stated justification? New Jersey’s refusal to conscript state and local police into enforcing federal immigration law. In short, New Jersey is being targeted for complying with the Constitution.

This political theater masquerading as legal action is not just unprecedented—it is unconstitutional.

The Constitution Forbids Federal Commandeering of State Resources

The core of the controversy lies in the “Immigrant Trust Directive,” a New Jersey policy that prohibits state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal civil immigration actions absent a judicial warrant. Such a policy is not only lawful—it is constitutionally protected.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot compel states to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs. This principle, known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, was firmly established in New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997), and reaffirmed in Murphy v. NCAA (2018). In Printz, the Court explicitly stated that “[t]he Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” That includes immigration enforcement.

Administrative warrants issued by ICE are civil—not criminal—detainers. Unlike judicial warrants, they are not backed by probable cause reviewed by a neutral magistrate. As Col. Patrick Callahan correctly noted in his memo to New Jersey law enforcement, arresting individuals solely on the basis of such administrative paperwork would violate both the state directive and the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.

The Federal Government Has Options—But Coercion Is Not One of Them

Federal immigration law remains the responsibility of federal agents. Congress may encourage cooperation through incentives or even condition some federal funds on voluntary compliance—as long as such conditions are not coercive, as clarified in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). But what the federal government cannot do is threaten or criminalize states for refusing to deploy their own resources to do federal bidding.

That is precisely what Habba threatens to do when she declares on national television: “I will come after them hard.”

Such rhetoric belongs to autocracy, not constitutional democracy. Investigating state officials for declining to violate the Constitution is not law enforcement—it is political intimidation.

Federalism Is Not Optional

If history has taught us anything, it is that the separation of state and federal power is essential to protecting liberty. The Court in Murphy warned against allowing Congress to “commandeer a state’s legislative or executive branch”—a warning now equally applicable to the executive threats of a federal prosecutor.

Let us be clear: this investigation is not about national security. It is about federal overreach and the use of federal prosecutorial machinery to subdue political opposition. New Jersey’s policy may be debated in the public square or challenged in state court—but it cannot be criminalized by federal prosecutors acting at the behest of a president.

The people of New Jersey have the right to determine how their own police forces interact with federal agencies. That is what the Tenth Amendment guarantees. That is what Supreme Court precedent protects. And that is what New Jersey will defend.

In this moment, we must reject the illusion that compliance with federal immigration enforcement is mandatory. It is not. And we must expose efforts to punish political dissent under the false banner of law and order.

As a constitutional attorney and lifelong advocate for civil liberties, I stand firmly in defense of state sovereignty. New Jersey is not a colony of Washington. It is a state of the union. And no president, prosecutor, or political opportunist has the right to tell us otherwise.