On March 4, 2025, four sanctuary city mayors—Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York—testified before Congress, defiantly defending their cities’ policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement despite clear mandates under federal law, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which prohibits harboring illegal aliens. Their stance, rooted in local ordinances like Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance and Boston’s Trust Act, openly flouts the supremacy of federal authority over immigration, a power explicitly granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. By refusing to assist ICE in detaining or deporting undocumented immigrants absent violent criminal convictions, these mayors argue they’re protecting community trust and local resources—yet this selective compliance risks igniting an insurrection against federal sovereignty, as they effectively nullify laws enacted by the national government, echoing the nullification crises of the 19th century that nearly fractured the Union.
 

This brazen defiance threatens a constitutional crisis by undermining the delicate balance of power between federal and state entities, a cornerstone of American governance. The mayors’ testimony leaned on the anti-commandeering doctrine from Printz v. United States (1997), asserting that the federal government cannot force local police to enforce immigration law. However, critics, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna—who referred them to the DOJ for potential prosecution—contend that their policies cross into active obstruction, potentially violating federal statutes and inviting chaos. Mike Johnston’s bold November 2024 pledge to “go to jail” rather than comply with Trump’s deportation plans, coupled with Wu’s insistence that Boston’s immigrants “belong here” despite legal status, signals a willingness to escalate resistance to the point of civil disobedience. If unchecked, this could provoke a federal response—such as withholding funds or deploying ICE en masse—pushing the nation toward a standoff reminiscent of the 1860s, where local leaders’ defiance of national authority teetered on the edge of rebellion.
 

The stakes are not just legal but existential, as these mayors’ actions could unravel the rule of law and invite broader insurrectionary sentiment. Eric Adams, despite his recent cooperation with the Trump administration following a DOJ dismissal of his corruption case, still defends New York’s sanctuary status, arguing it prevents a breakdown of public services—yet this pragmatic veneer masks a deeper challenge to federal primacy. Brandon Johnson’s claim that Chicago’s falling crime rates justify sanctuary policies ignores data cited by Republicans, like ICE arrests of violent offenders shielded by these cities, suggesting a deliberate gamble with public safety. If the Supreme Court or Congress fails to decisively address this rift, the precedent set by these mayors could embolden other jurisdictions to pick and choose federal laws at will, fracturing national unity and plunging the country into a constitutional abyss where governance becomes a patchwork of rogue fiefdoms, each daring the others to blink first.