Indiana Sheriff Argues He Can’t Be Prosecuted For Failing To Cooperate With ICE

The Democrat-run police department 'has repeatedly released criminal aliens into the community' for at least a year, says the AG's office.

This state just made ‘misgendering’ grounds for child removal



Just as commonsense, reality-based reforms gain momentum nationwide, Colorado lawmakers have raced in the opposite direction — pushing transgender legislation that defies reason, conscience, and the Constitution.

For Coloradans who still believe in parental rights and free speech, the state’s rapid slide into a legal and cultural dystopia feels less like policymaking and more like a hostile takeover.

This agenda is not about tolerance. Its advocates want dominion over our children, our families, our language, and our wallets.

Transgender activists dominate both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly and occupy the governor’s mansion. Whatever agenda they set — no matter how extreme — they have the votes to pass. And this session, they delivered. Some proposals were so radical that even California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) refused to sign similar measures.

Too extreme for California

Lawmakers passed two sweeping bills. HB1312 effectively criminalizes dissent, while HB1309 compels taxpayers and private insurers to fund transgender medical procedures.

And if that weren’t enough, the state now boasts a “trans continental pipeline” — designed to attract minors and adults from other states seeking gender transitions.

HB1312 drew national attention for its blatant assault on speech and parental rights. The bill bans “deadnaming” and “misgendering,” even in private settings. Parents who decline to affirm their child’s gender identity could face accusations of abuse and risk losing custody. Schools and businesses must adopt ideologically driven language, regardless of biological fact — or face lawsuits for discrimination.

When critics raised legitimate concerns about the erosion of parental rights, supporters responded by comparing parental rights groups to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis.

Facing growing national backlash, some transgender advocacy groups quietly expressed concern over the bill’s visibility. Lawmakers responded with superficial amendments, hoping to defuse opposition. The changes amounted to political theater — and nothing more.

RELATED: Red-state rot: How GOP governors are handing power to the left

VectorInspiration via iStock/Getty Images

Lawmakers removed the explicit bans on “deadnaming” and “misgendering” from HB131, but they didn’t abandon the agenda. Instead, they embedded new “rights” into the bill’s anti-discrimination section, including the right to use a “chosen name” and self-selected pronouns. In effect, the bill still prohibits deadnaming and misgendering — just under different language.

In practice, this means that if a public school student adopts a new name or pronouns, and a parent declines to affirm that change, the state could treat the parent as discriminatory. That refusal could trigger a state investigation. If authorities deem the parent abusive, the child could be removed from the home.

Amendments or not, HB1312 remains a dangerous overreach — an overt attempt to impose radical gender ideology through state power. It violates core constitutional protections and intrudes on the most basic parental rights.

HB1309, though less publicized, poses an equally serious threat. It mandates that health insurance plans — and by extension, taxpayers — fund any transgender medical intervention imaginable, from puberty blockers to hormones to surgeries. Yet according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services, these procedures can cause lasting physical and psychological harm.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) has already signed HB1312 into law. It’s only a matter of time before he signs HB1309.

Building the transgender ‘pipeline’

Colorado’s so-called “trans continental pipeline” became official last year. Marketed as a sanctuary from “unsafe situations and political climates,” the program funnels transgender individuals into the state through an organized four-step relocation plan. Activists behind the pipeline once operated covertly on Tinder, the dating platform. Now they run a public website promoting the service.

The pipeline offers applicants help with moving, housing, employment, and access to hormone replacement therapy — all under the banner of “care.” Organizers boast that Colorado ranks among 14 states offering what they call the nation’s “best legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.”

In reality, Colorado’s legislature and governor have fully aligned themselves with radical activists bent on transforming the state into a haven for gender ideology — at the expense of free speech, parental authority, and basic biological reality.

This agenda is not about tolerance. It’s about control. Its advocates want dominion over our children, our families, our language, and our wallets.

Silence is no longer an option. Americans of goodwill must reject the bullying tactics of transgender ideologues and stand firm for truth, for parental rights, and for the future of their communities.

National, State Leaders Ask Indiana Senate To Stop Blocking Vote On Immigration Enforcement Bill

'When Hoosiers went to the polls last November, they did not vote for half-measures or vague promises,' the America First letter tells Bray.

Massachusetts frees illegal alien child rape suspects on low bail as Mayor Wu doubles down on sanctuary laws



Massachusetts released illegal aliens with child rape charges back onto the streets by setting low bail amounts.

A Thursday WBZ-TV report looked into accusations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that local law enforcement had released suspected violent criminals.

— (@)

According to ICE press releases, Boston Police freed one individual, and others were released from jails or courts.

Jose Fernando-Perez, an illegal alien from Guatemala, was charged with three counts of forcible rape of a child and three counts of aggravated rape of a child. ICE arrested him in February after a court ignored the agency's detainer request, releasing him on "pre-trial conditions" in October 2022. WBZ reported that Fernando-Perez posted $7,500 bail with an order to remain at home.

'Giving sanctuary to violent criminal immigrants.'

Acting field office director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston, Patricia Hyde, stated that Fernando-Perez "is exactly the type of alien we are targeting with our 'worst first' policy."

"He posed a significant danger to the children of Massachusetts, and we will not tolerate such a threat to our community," Hyde said.

Stivenson Omar Perez-Ajtzalan, also an illegal alien from Guatemala, was charged with aggravated rape of a child with a 10-year age difference. He, too, posted his $7,500 bail and was released with a GPS monitor, according to WBZ. He was apprehended by ICE earlier this month.

"Not only did Perez display a blatant disregard for our immigration laws, he sexually assaulted a child. He came to this country to do harm, and now he must be made to face the consequences of his actions," Hyde stated.

Juan Alberto Rodezno-Marin, an illegal alien from Honduras, was released with a GPS monitor after he was charged with "indecent assault and battery on [a] person over 14, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, masked armed robbery and assault to rape." He was apprehended by ICE in January.

WBZ reported that Worcester County Jail released two individuals accused of child rape after they posted just $500 bail.

Two other inmates facing cocaine and fentanyl trafficking charges were bailed out on $500 and $4,000 bail.

Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis told WBZ, "Most people would not think that's an appropriate bail."

Under Massachusetts law, local law enforcement is prohibited from holding an inmate based only on their illegal immigration status, thereby forbidding them from cooperating with ICE detainer requests.

"It's very frustrating for me to know I might have a drug trafficker or a violent offender, I call ICE and they're like, we're very busy with a couple situations, I can't get there for a few hours. I can't hold them right now," Evangelidis stated. "We've seen the detainers triple in the last three years. We were in the 30s a couple years ago. We exceeded 100 in 2024. To me, that means there are more people illegally in the Commonwealth committing crimes."

Meanwhile, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) continues to defend her city's sanctuary policies. During a State of the City speech last week, the mayor said she "stand[s] with immigrants."

"While this national moment isn't the one I — and so many families — had hoped for, I am grateful that my daughter gets to call this city home. Boston is not a city that tolerates tyranny," she said. "Boston doesn't back down."

During a 2023 interview with GBH's Boston Public Radio, Wu stated that everyone has a "legal right" to enter the U.S. to claim asylum and seek shelter.

President Donald Trump's administration responded to Wu's State of the City speech, claiming she had "doubled down on giving sanctuary to violent criminal immigrants."

"Why is Mayor Wu intent on defying the will of the American people and obstructing the Trump Administration's efforts to remove these monsters from our streets?" the administration questioned.

Wu accused the administration of spreading "reckless propaganda."

"Boston is proud to be the safest major city in the country, and we work with all levels of law enforcement every day to prevent crime and hold perpetrators accountable," Wu said. "If the Trump administration is truly concerned about safety, they should fund healthcare and education, support our veterans, pass common sense gun reforms, and stop threatening our economy."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Denver mayor used auto-delete messaging platform to have secret talks about migrant crisis



Democratic Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and his team used Signal, a messaging application with an auto-delete feature, to have secret communications about the sanctuary city's immigration crisis.

KCNC-TV revealed the scandal in a Thursday report, explaining that the mayor and 14 of his senior advisers, appointees, and lawyers created a "Strike Force" group on the application to have sensitive discussions that would otherwise have been accessible to the public through open records requests. Instead, the end-to-end encryption software and its auto-delete feature concealed their communications.

'Giving the impression that we are doing something we don't want the public to see.'

Joshua Posner, the mayor's director of strategic initiatives, sent a text message on January 15 to several administration members instructing them to move their conversations about immigration to Signal, KCNC reported.

Posner wrote, "We are going to use Signal to communicate with Strike Force so that communication remains encrypted and secure (and messages auto delete.)"

He proceeded to explain to the mayor's team how to download the application to their phones.

Steven Zansberg, a Denver attorney, told KCNC that the actions of the mayor and his administration were "unlawful."

"It deprives us of the rights we have as Coloradans to observe the conduct of public business," he stated, noting that three years is the "standard records retention requirement."

"It seems like a pretty plain, straightforward, deliberate effort to evade transparency," Zansberg concluded.

Jeff Roberts, director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, also argued that the move undermined that state's open records law.

"This is not transparent," Roberts told the news outlet. "They are giving the impression that we are doing something we don't want the public to see. The city is saying at the get-go, 'These are records the public should never see.'"

When confronted about the messaging scandal, Johnston's office blamed President Donald Trump's administration.

Jordan Fuja, a spokesperson for the mayor, told KCNC, "When President Trump took office in January, it was clear that there would be rapidly developing changes to the way the federal government interacts with cities that could have significant impacts on how Denver operates. The particular group was started in January for internal staff to easily keep track of and share information regarding federal actions that impact Denver under the new administration."

Fuja argued, "The City retention schedule does not obligate city employees to retain electronic mail messages."

KCNC reported that the city confirmed Signal messages were set to auto-delete from January 15 to January 29, after which the feature was disabled.

The decision to move the communication to Signal came just weeks after America First Legal requested that Johnston's administration turn over communications related to immigration issues.

AFL demanded "all records, including communications, calendar entries, and documents mentioning or belonging to Mike Johnston, Mayor since November 1, 2024."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Boston mayor drops $650,000 preparing for sanctuary city hearing: 'Stakes are high'



Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) admitted to spending $650,000 in legal fees to prepare her for last week's congressional oversight hearing on sanctuary city policies.

During the six-hour committee hearing on March 5, lawmakers grilled Wu, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D), Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D), and New York Mayor Eric Adams (D) over their cities' sanctuary laws.

'Do we need to spend $650,000 of taxpayer funds on a show trial hearing?'

A spokesperson for Wu's office confirmed that the city "expects to pay" up to $650,000 to a law firm for preparation sessions that included the mayor's senior advisers, Cabinet leaders, law department, and Boston Police. For an additional $8,500, Wu brought dozens of her staff members to Washington, D.C., the Boston Herald reported.

Wu's office noted that Cahill Gordon & Reindel, an external law firm, charged the city $950 per hour.

A spokesperson for the legal firm told Boston.com that it "is pleased to represent Mayor Michelle Wu and the city of Boston in this congressional investigation."

During a Tuesday interview on GBH's Boston Public Radio, Wu defended her decision amid scrutiny over the massive legal bill.

She called the committee's investigation "extremely serious."

"As much as it can seem like a sort of show or production when you're watching it, Congress has power, and people who are in the federal government have real power to enact consequences, whether that's on federal funding or whether that is to follow through with some of the threats around prosecution of individual people or the referral to the Department of Justice," Wu said.

"It is money that I very, very much wish we did not have to spend at all, and time from my staff and team that could have gone to much better, much more important things. But, the stakes are high," she stated. "We're still continuing with the document production that has been formally requested."

Wu vowed to continue providing the committee with the requested materials.

"When there was threats to put me in jail, to take away funding, I needed to make sure that I was doing everything possible to represent our city well, to represent the policies with complete accuracy, and having legal representation was a necessary part of that," Wu added.

Josh Kraft, a Democratic mayoral challenger, bashed Wu for spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal preparation.

He stated, "Mayor Wu said she's going to DC to defend the city, and I support this. My question is: do we need to spend $650,000 of taxpayer funds on a show trial hearing?"

Kraft told WCVB, "I understand the preparation, but in a time when the city is becoming more and more fiscally vulnerable, I think $650,000 in preparation is a lot of money. If it was me, I would've looked at other more cost-effective measures to prepare for the testimony in D.C., and in addition, I know 12 folks from city hall accompanied the mayor there. I would leave at least probably two-thirds or more back to be in city hall to be responsive to the citizens of Boston."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sanctuary mayors face DOJ criminal referral for allegedly harboring illegal aliens



Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced Wednesday her plans to refer several sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation, accusing them of harboring illegal aliens.

Luna shared the announcement during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s hearing with Democratic Mayors Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York City. The hearing was held as part of the committee’s investigation into the impact of sanctuary city policies.

'I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations.'

She opened her remarks by questioning Wu, Johnson, and Johnston about their cities’ sanctuary policies. She did not pose any questions to Adams, who has agreed to work with President Donald Trump, border czar Tom Homan, and the rest of the administration to address New York City’s illegal immigration crisis.

“After this line of questioning, it’s very clear that these policies, that you will have all implicated are active and alive and well in your cities, are in direct violation with U.S. Title 8 code, subsection 1324, and is a federal offense,” Luna told the mayors.

“But you all speak about a broken immigration system, and yet here you guys are aiding and abetting in that entire process,” she continued. “I want to be very clear about something: Open border policies, which is something that you guys are talking about, hurts people on both sides, meaning the people that are coming here illegally and then American citizens as well.”

Luna stated that she does not believe the Democratic mayors “are bad people” but instead that they are “ideologically misled.”

“Unfortunately, based on your responses, I’m ... going to be criminally referring you to the Department of Justice for investigation, and as soon as I leave here, these will be going over to Pam Bondi,” Luna declared, as she held up three apparent DOJ referrals, potentially indicating she may have excluded Adams from the scrutiny.

Several media reports stated that Luna referred all four sanctuary mayors; however, it remains unclear from her direct statements whether Adams was included.

Luna noted that the referrals were not intended to “bully” the mayors.

“But I do believe that your policies are hurting the American people, and you can make that known with the evidence that you could present to the Department of Justice. But if you guys continue doing what you’re doing, you’re not going to help anyone. You’re going to hurt more people, and that’s exactly why I’m tired of it. The American people are tired of it,” she concluded.

Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) used the remainder of Luna’s yielded time to question Adams about the financial impact the influx of illegal aliens has had on New York City.

Adams explained that city taxpayers have shelled out roughly $6.9 billion in response to the immigration crisis.

“The long-term impact of that is extremely significant,” Adams replied.

After the hearing, Luna wrote in a post on X, “I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations based on evidence from their own comments and policies, proving that they were breaking federal law.”

“Open borders ideologies hurt people on both sides. If you hold federal office and are breaking the law, you’ll be criminally investigated by the DOJ,” she added.

The DOJ and the mayors' offices did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump's DOJ sues Chicago over sanctuary city laws 'thwarting' ICE



President Donald Trump's Department of Justice has ramped up its efforts to dismantle sanctuary laws by filing a lawsuit on Thursday against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago that alleges their policies "impede" federal immigration enforcement.

The complaint also named Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, and other local officials.

'The conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws ... has resulted in countless criminals being released.'

Specifically, the DOJ accused the Illinois TRUST Act, the Chicago Welcoming City ordinance, and the Way Forward Act of hindering Immigration and Customs Enforcement's efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens.

The Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law in 2017, says, "State law does not currently grant State or local law enforcement the authority to enforce federal civil immigration laws." It includes a "prohibition on enforcing federal civil immigration laws."

"A law enforcement agency or law enforcement official shall not detain or continue to detain any individual solely on the basis of any immigration detainer or civil immigration warrant or otherwise comply with an immigration detainer or civil immigration warrant," it reads.

Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance was passed in 2012 by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D).

The ordinance states that city agencies and agents cannot "arrest, detain, or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States."

Both laws prevent local jurisdictions from honoring ICE detainers, which request that a criminal illegal alien currently in local custody be held up to 48 hours beyond their release date to allow immigration officials to safely transfer the individual to federal custody.

The Way Forward Act was enacted in 2021 and amended the TRUST Act to provide additional protection to illegal aliens. It states that "a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official may not inquire about or investigate the citizenship or immigration status or place of birth of any individual in the agency or official's custody or who has otherwise been stopped or detained by the agency or official."

The DOJ's lawsuit claimed that the state and local laws are "designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

The agency further stated that the policies "obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law" and "impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe."

It continued, "Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States."

The complaint accused sanctuary jurisdictions of effectively being "safe havens" for criminal illegal aliens seeking to evade federal law enforcement agents.

It argued that the laws prevent ICE and the Department of Homeland Security from identifying illegal aliens who are subject to removal by restricting the information local governments can share with federal agents. The DOJ contended that such local laws contradict federal laws that "prohibit state and local governments from refusing to share information."

A DOJ official told the New York Post that the administration's immigration enforcement effort includes "an all-hands-on-deck approach," noting that the lawsuit is "one tool in our tool belt."

"This lawsuit will put the spotlight on obstruction by state and local officials and their refusal to support the administration and compliance with the law. The law says people who are here illegally are not allowed to stay here; they should be deported. So we want to make sure those impediments are taken away," the official told the news outlet.

"These states and localities advertise themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions. They are inviting people here who are illegal, and they're promising to protect them from federal law enforcement," the official continued. "That's inconsistent with federal law, and it's impeding federal law enforcement efforts, and these laws need to be struck from the books because they're incentivizing illegal immigration into the country."

The DOJ anticipates that the lawsuit may go all the way to the Supreme Court, the official added.

During Attorney General Pam Bondi's first day on the job, she directed the DOJ to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities.

The DOJ official told the Post that it was "no coincidence" that the lawsuit was filed shortly after Bondi's swearing-in.

"She is right out of the gate sending a clear message to other sanctuary jurisdictions," the official stated.

Pritzker's office responded to the lawsuit, stating, “Unlike Donald Trump, Illinois follows the law. The bipartisan Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law by a Republican governor, has always been compliant with federal law and still is today. Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals. Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted January 6 violent criminals. We look forward to seeing them in court.”

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle stated that the county plans to “fight back.”

“We will pursue every legal opportunity to defend the programs that we believe in and defend our values,” Preckwinkle said.

Johnson’s office did not respond to requests for comment from The Hill or Newsweek.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Chicago Dems devolve into civil war over sanctuary laws shielding illegal aliens



The Chicago City Council devolved into a civil war on Wednesday after Democratic members voted against a proposal from two of their colleagues to roll back the city's sanctuary laws.

Democratic aldermen Raymond Lopez and Silvana Tabares introduced an amendment to Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance that would have allowed the Chicago Police Department to cooperate with federal immigration agents when illegal aliens have been arrested or convicted of certain crimes.

'They profit on fear.'

Under the current ordinance, city officials are prohibited from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in any enforcement situation.

The proposal would have granted local officials the ability to cooperate with ICE when an illegal alien is arrested or convicted of sexual crimes involving a minor or gang, drug, and prostitution-related activities.

The above carve-outs proposed by the aldermen were previously removed under former Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D).

Wednesday's city council meeting was packed with residents who came out to voice support for both sides of the issue.

During the meeting's rowdy public comment period, a man who referred to himself as "the Chicago Conservative" spoke in support of removing sanctuary protections for illegal aliens.

During the previous speaker's comments and while the Chicago Conservative walked toward the microphone, Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) could be seen away from his seat, having a side conversation.

"Good morning, Brandon Johnson," the Chicago Conservative said. "I'm going to start off with this question: Who are you loyal to, the American citizens here in Chicago or the illegal immigrants here in Chicago?"

His comments received boos and jeers from some residents in the chamber.

"The sanctuary law that Brandon Johnson allowed has drawn criminals, drug dealers, and now terrorists — we have terrorists in our city now. Some here in city hall as we speak," the Chicago Conservative continued.

Johnson returned to his seat to address the audience uproar and restore order to the chamber, briefly pausing the Chicago Conservative's speech to issue a warning to those being disruptive.

"The Democratic Party cannot save us. Only God can save us," the Chicago Conservative added.

During the meeting, the city council voted 39-11 to dismiss the Democratic aldermen's proposal.

Lopez and Tabares may have an opportunity to pass the proposal during a future meeting. However, it would require 34 votes to approve, and Johnson, who has been a staunch supporter of the city's sanctuary status, would undoubtedly move to veto it.

Johnson applauded the city council for rejecting the amendment.

"Our job is to make sure that people are protected and safe. That is the top priority of any government, and that's what we're going to do," Johnson stated. "The fear that has found its way in the city of Chicago, because of the threats that are coming from the incoming administration, the people of Chicago can rest assured that the full force of government will do everything in its power to protect the residents of this city."

Tabares responded to the vote, saying, "These immigrant advocates, they don't want to solve the problem."

"It fuels their narrative and capacity to fundraise, and so they profit on fear," she added.

Lopez claimed, "All of this is just political theater for them to have a boogeyman to point at the next four years."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

City sues California over sanctuary law fueling violent crime spike: 'Clear and present danger'



The City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), and state Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) over the state's sanctuary law that shields illegal aliens from federal immigration authorities.

The lawsuit argued that California Senate Bill 54, signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2017, is "unconstitutional" and prohibits local jurisdictions from complying with federal immigration laws.

'Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on US soil.'

"California's Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to engage in fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws," the complaint read.

The lawsuit attributes the rise in violent crime and the increased presence of illegal alien gang members in the United States to sanctuary policies, arguing that SB 54 "is a clear and present danger to the health, safety, and welfare" of residents. It noted that crime has been rising in California since 2018, the same year the sanctuary law went into effect.

SB 54 prohibits local law enforcement agencies from transferring illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. It also bans them from notifying ICE about inmate release dates.

Such policies force federal immigration agents to locate and detain illegal aliens after they have been released back onto the streets. This approach is both costlier and far more dangerous than allowing ICE agents to enter the local jails to transfer inmates to federal custody.

President-elect Donald Trump's previous administration sued California over its sanctuary law in 2018; however, it was struck down in court.

Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns stated, "We are fighting the Sanctuary State Law because it obstructs our ability to fully enforce the law and keep our community safe."

"When the stakes are currently so high, with reports of increases in human trafficking, increases in foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings in the U.S., killing, raping, and committing other violent crimes against our citizens, we need every possible resource available to fight crime, including federal resources," he continued. "Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on U.S. soil."

City attorney Michael Gates called Huntington Beach's lawsuit "incredibly strong," claiming that California's sanctuary law "violates the Supremacy and Naturalization Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, forces our City officials to violate federal immigration laws under 8 U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S. Code, Sections 371 and 372."

"It is unfortunate that we have to fight the State of California in order to achieve sound and effective law enforcement policies. We will continue to fight for the safety of our community relentlessly and with vigor," Gates added.

A spokesperson for Bonta's office told the Voice of OC, "The Attorney General is committed to protecting and ensuring the rights of California's immigrant communities and upholding vital laws like SB 54."

"Our office successfully fought back against a challenge to SB 54 by the first Trump administration, and we are prepared to vigorously defend SB 54 again," the spokesperson said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!