Federal officer slammed vehicle into a construction worker while pursuing a man who died in similar circumstances
A federal officer slammeda vehicle into a Houston construction worker and broke his leg, believing him to be a man who apparently died years ago, the dead man’s family said on Friday, further calling into question the account given by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The worker, 48-year-old Miguel Parra Hernandez of Mexico, remains hospitalized with multiple leg fractures and needs reconstructive ankle surgery, according to FIEL, a Houston-based immigration advocacy group. At a news conference on Friday, the group said the alleged suspect’s family had shared documentation proving his death.
Yesterday, in United States v. City of New York, yet another federal court ruled against the Trump administration in a sanctuary city case. "Sanctuary" jurisdictions are state and local governments that restrict their law enforcement agencies and other employees from assisting federal immigration enforcement and deportation efforts in various ways. In this case, Judge Reyes of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld New York City laws restricting local law enforcement information-sharing and other assistance to federal immigration enforcers.
The court ruled that federal law does not preempt these policies, and that if if it did, there would be a violation of the anti-commandeering requirements of the Tenth Amendment:
Even were the Court to find that the United States has standing and the challenged provisions are preempted—both answered in the negative above—United States' claims would still fail because the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States precludes relief.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. amend. X….
The United States argues it is "not seeking to compel participation in immigration enforcement … but rather to remove Defendants' express and implicit obstacles to the Executive's duty to carry out its immigration enforcement duties…." New York City replies "if accepted, [the United States' claims] would require the City to affirmatively assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws in violation of the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering doctrine…." New York City is correct, at least partially.
The United States seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to preempt the challenged provisions… If the challenged provisions were struck, while New York City would not be obligated to carry out federal immigration enforcement, they would be barred from prohibiting their agencies and employees from engaging in federal immigration enforcement by expending personnel, property, and other resources to (1) detain individuals and (2) implement inter-agency information-sharing, including disclosing personally identifiable information, all potentially in violation of state law. And of course, there is nothing within federal law that obligates states to participate in federal immigration enforcement or compels states to comply therewith.
The United States' preemption arguments amount to nothing more than a backdoor around the Tenth Amendment and rest on a false distinction between (a) compelling local governments' participation in federal immigration enforcement and (b) prohibiting local governments from dictating how their personnel and other resources may be utilized towards federal immigration enforcement….. "
The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies" to commands for "affirmative action" and the imposition of "prohibitions." Murphy [v. NCAA], 584 U.S. at 455 (citation modified). If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states' constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing.
This reasoning is correct. And it is notable that this ruling - like many others protecting sanctuary cities - relies heavily on the Supreme Court's 2018 anti-commandeering decision in Murphy v. NCAA, written by Justice Samuel Alito (probably the Court's most conservative justice), and joined by all the other conservatives then on the Court. In that case, the Court emphasized that the anti-commandeering doctrine bars Congress from dictating the actions of state and local legislatures, regardless of whether the dictation takes the form of an affirmative mandate, or a prohibition against legalizing or barring something under state law.
Judge Reyes also rejects the administration's argument under the "intergovernmental immunity" doctrine, which bars states and localities from directly regulating federal agencies or "discriminating" against them. Like the court in the recent case of United States v. New Jersey, he correctly emphasizes that there can be no discrimination when there is no other comparable activity that gets more favorable treatment under the sanctuary jurisdiction's policies:
"Differential treatment is critical to a discrimination-based intergovernmental immunity claim." New York, 814 F. Supp. 3d at 282….; "[A] comparator is necessary." New York, 810 F. Supp. 3d at 353. The United States discrimination claim fails for lack of a comparator.
The United States does not and cannot identify a similarly situated entity. State and local agencies and their officers do not enforce immigration law, nor do members of the public… As the United States concedes, the Federal Government holds the "exclusive charge of enforcing immigration law…." Not only are other federal law enforcement agencies with different charges differently situated, "[f]or a state law to unconstitutionally discriminate against the federal government, it must treat comparable classes of federal and non-federal employees differently, not different classes of federal employees." Illinois, 796 F. Supp. 3d at 534
I would add that, as I explained in a recent post, the entire antidiscrimination element of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine is dubious, and should probably be overturned by the Supreme Court:
[T]he whole doctrine of intergovernmental immunity strikes me as bogus, judge-made law. There is no provision in the Constitution requiring it. And the federal government is not some historically oppressed minority group protected by the antidiscrimination provisions Fourteenth Amendment. Where state and local governments are otherwise free to refuse to help the feds, that autonomy should not be forfeited merely because they choose to support potentially similar activities by state or local governments, or by the private sector. Obviously, a district court cannot refuse to obey Supreme Court precedent in this field. But I hope the Supreme Court might someday reevaluate that precedent.
This is just the most recent of a long line of defeats for Trump in sanctuary city cases, in both his first and second administration. Judge Reyes cites close to a dozen such cases over the last year alone. I summarized this jurisprudence more fully in a post covering three other recent sanctuary cases, last month:
In cases where the administration has tried to directly coerce states and localities into cooperating, courts have rightly ruled this violates the Supreme Court's "anti-commandeering" precedents, a series of decisions reached primarily by conservative justices, which hold that the federal government may not force state and local governments to help enforce federal law or carry out under federal purposes. In cases where Trump has sought to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, courts have (also rightly) ruled that the executive cannot impose conditions on federal grants that were not authorized by Congress and (in some cases) that the Trump conditions are unconstitutionally coercive. For my analyses of Trump II court decisions on these issues, see here, here, and here.
Yesterday's ruling may be appealed. But if so, it is unlikely to be overturned.
Trump has posted a few rare wins in sanctuary cases with unusual facts, such as in the Contracts Clause case I analyzed in the September post. But, such cases are highly exceptional. And, as explained in the September post, the Contracts Clause decision has various flaws, and would not greatly impede sanctuary jurisdictions even if it survives on appeal.
Overall, Trump has been losing these kinds of cases so much that he might even get tired of losing.
Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, defended the company's use of visas and green cards.
Paulo Nunes dos Santos/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Microsoft President Brad Smith warned that US immigration policies could drive AI talent overseas.
"Let's not put that at risk," Smith said.
The Trump administration recently suspended Microsoft and other tech firms from a green card program.
If America wants to win the AI race, sending the world's brightest engineers packing might not be a winning strategy.
That's the warning from Microsoft President Brad Smith, who said the Trump administration's immigration crackdown risks driving the next generation of AI talent away from the United States.
"I think we should all be worried about sending intentionally or inadvertently or otherwise, signals that send the most talented next wave of AI software engineers to other countries rather than the United States," Smith said in an episode of Politico's "The Decoded Podcast" that aired on Thursday.
His comments come after the Trump administration announced last week that it was suspending Microsoft, Adobe, and several other technology companies from a federal program that sponsors foreign workers for permanent residency.
Vice President JD Vance accused Microsoft of abusing the Permanent Labor Certification, or PERM, program by laying off American employees while hiring lower-paid foreign workers.
Smith, who Business Insider reported was recently put in charge of Microsoft's communications, pushed back against those allegations, saying the administration had presented a misleading picture of Microsoft's hiring practices.
US Vice President JD Vance has criticized Microsoft's use of visa programs.
Daniel Heuer-Pool/Getty Images
"What was presented as Microsoft replacing 6,000 people who lost their jobs with 9,000 foreigners was frankly completely off base," he said.
Smith said most of the company's visa and green card applications concerned existing employees rather than new hires, adding that Microsoft had hired 9,200 American workers in its last fiscal year.
"That was left out of the narrative," he said.
He also rejected suggestions that Microsoft pays foreign workers less than their American counterparts, saying employees are compensated under the same system regardless of immigration status.
As part of our ongoing H-1B Fallout series, Business Insider previously reported that the Trump administration's shifting immigration policies have prompted some international workers to explore opportunities abroad, including in countries like the UK, Germany, and Canada.
An analysis of federal data by Business Insider found that certified H-1B applications fell 10% in the first nine months of fiscal year 2026 compared with the same period a year earlier. Applications for data scientists, however, rose 22.5%, highlighting continued demand for specialized AI talent.
On the Politico podcast, Smith cited immigrants' economic contributions as evidence of what America stands to lose.
He said that five of the six technology and science medal recipients recently honored by President Donald Trump had immigrated to the United States.
President Donald Trump awards tech execs and founders some of the country's highest scientific honors.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
According to Smith, the companies associated with those five individuals collectively represent more than a quarter of the S&P 500's market value.
Their contributions, he said, benefit not just technology employees but ordinary Americans whose retirement savings and pension funds are invested in those businesses.
"Think about what those five individuals have done for the well being, even the wealth and standard of living, of Americans across the country," Smith said.
Tom Homan says ICE also carried out more removals last month than in any previous month.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recorded its highest number of deportations in a single day since President Donald Trump returned to office, border official Tom Homan said, as the administration pushes to expand removals.
Homan announced the record in a social media post, saying ICE had also carried out more removals last month than in any other month. Figures for fiscal year 2026 are still being finalized, he added.
He also said monthly ICE arrest totals and voluntary departures recorded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been higher since June than in any previous months.
This morning I was on the ground with the ICE Air Operations team in Alexandria, LA to observe and assess removal operations. First up, a plane load of Haitians being sent back home—including those with criminal records for aggravated assault, sex assault, kidnapping, battery,… pic.twitter.com/Ajb9mgd2EA
The announcement followed Homan’s visit to ICE Air Operations in Alexandria, Louisiana, where he said he had observed and assessed deportation operations. He described a flight carrying Haitian nationals back to Haiti, including people he said had criminal records for aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, battery and other offenses.
The administration has urged people whose Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has expired, as well as those without legal immigration status, to use its voluntary departure program to return to their countries of origin.
“This Administration has made it clear that temporary means TEMPORARY,” Homan wrote, warning that those who remain in the country without legal status would face arrest and deportation.
If you are here illegally, we will find you, arrest you, and DEPORT you.
Yesterday, the men and women of ICE REMOVED these criminals from our communities:
— U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (@ICEgov) September 1, 2026
Homan said the administration was expanding its enforcement capacity to increase removals beyond current record levels and fulfill Trump’s pledge to carry out mass deportations. He described the effort as part of a broader campaign to restore law and order, protect communities and promote economic prosperity.
ICE’s enforcement practices have drawn both support and opposition among members of the public and political figures.
The federal government tried to turn our public servants into deportation agents and force New York City to carry out ICE’s cruel agenda.
Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws.
Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of…
Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch received a standing ovation at the Alfred E. Smith dinner and joked about calls for Mayor Zohran Mamdani to fire her.
ICE agents rammed a man during a pursuit in Houston, leaving him with a shattered leg. But a bulletin of the target shows a man who died in 2017, his daughter said.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Trump administration sued California election officials Thursday, asking a judge to bar the state from counting mail-in ballots for next month’s midterm elections from people the federal government has identified as “likely” noncitizens until their status can be confirmed.
The lawsuit comes after the Justice Department said California officials failed to meet a 48-hour deadline to review a password-protected thumb drive that contains a list of 20,000 names the federal government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent ballots to participate in the Nov. 3 election. The state mails ballots to all registered voters. A top Justice Department official had sent a letter earlier this week threatening potential legal action if California didn’t comply.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a letter to the Justice Department that the federal government hasn’t provided evidence to support its allegation that 20,000 names on the state’s voter rolls are of noncitizens. She referenced an instance in which the federal government alleged nearly 16,000 possible noncitizens were listed on Nevada’s voter rolls, but the state determined that all were, in fact, U.S. citizens.
She also noted that voting is already underway in the state. Weber, a Democrat, said the Justice Department was “demanding unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians’ right to vote, based on unverifiable information or methodology that you still fail to explain or provide.”
California’s elections are in “full compliance” with federal law, she added.
Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan said in a statement that his office received the letter and thumb drive this week, along with a “hand written note providing a password” to access the list of alleged noncitizens on the voter rolls. He said he did not consider the thumb drive a secure device. The secretary of state’s office said the password was written “on a sticky note.”
The Justice Department’s lawsuit says the federal government sought to “work collaboratively” with California to identify noncitizens registered to vote in the state, and “California made no serious effort to do so.”
“The United States thus seeks commonplace election relief when a ballot is called into question,” the lawsuit says. “This Court should enjoin California from presently tabulating vote by-mail ballots from likely noncitizens in the upcoming federal election until the voter’s citizenship status can be determined,” the lawsuit says.
Weber, who is named in the lawsuit, suggested the federal government’s outreach had not been collaborative.
She said that over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that California had 190,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls but refused to provide the methodology or data sources when the office asked for them.
Khan is set to replace Smith as the most popular surname for newborns next year following a surge in immigration and a decline in the native birth rate, according to an analysis of official data.
Despite admitting mass immigration is damaging the country, the ruling classes fail to secure the border while clamping down on dissent. It's accelerating Britain towards crisis, say David Betz and Michael Rainsborough.
Four in five new jobs created in Britain since 2014 were taken by migrants while the number of British people on out-of-work benefits increased by 2.3 million, according to a report from the Centre for Social Justice.
Portugal’s immigration agency AIMA is close to clearing a vast backlog of regularisation cases, with just 5,000 of 445,000 pending applications still unresolved, Minister of the Presidency António Leitão Amaro
A second village is to hold a vote on whether to have a referendum to leave the UK in protest over plans to create a camp to house 1,250 asylum seekers in a former RAF base nearby.
The locking down of Gosport to protect illegal migrants shows beyond doubt that Britain is a two-tier state, says Paul Birch, where locals must produce ID while illegal migrants are escorted away in luxury coaches.
Police have 'locked down' an entire town to stop unrest by setting up a dispersal zone covering the whole of Gosport following protests sparked by the arrival of a migrant boat using a 'new route' from Normandy.
Nearly all women who attempt to reach the UK in small boats from northern France are raped on their journey, Shabana Mahmoud, the Home Secretary, has said.
Five more charities in receipt of three quarters of a million pounds of public funds have been added to Charlotte Gill's list of taxpayer-funded asylum charities which are assisting illegal migration to the UK.
Login
