Written by Timothy Bennett.

The escalating tension between federal immigration authorities and sanctuary jurisdictions has reached a critical juncture, with Border Czar Tom Homan signaling imminent criminal prosecutions for state and local officials who obstruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. In a recent statement, Homan emphasized that harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants constitutes a felony under federal law, a stance that aligns with President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda. This development, coupled with Trump’s consideration of extraordinary measures like suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus for undocumented immigrants, underscores a profound shift in the federal approach to border security and sanctuary policies.

Tom Homan’s Stern Warning to Sanctuary Officials

Tom Homan, appointed as Border Czar to oversee immigration enforcement, has taken a resolute stance against sanctuary jurisdictions—cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In a press interaction, Homan declared that officials who cross the line into “harboring and concealing” undocumented immigrants will face felony charges under 8 U.S. Code § 1324. This federal statute criminalizes actions such as transporting, harboring, or shielding undocumented immigrants from detection, with penalties including imprisonment for up to five years, or more if the offense involves serious bodily injury or commercial gain.

Homan’s remarks were prompted by recent arrests of two judges—one in New Mexico and another in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin—for allegedly attempting to harbor undocumented immigrants. These arrests serve as a warning to other officials in sanctuary jurisdictions, signaling that the Department of Justice, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is prepared to pursue aggressive legal action. Homan’s repeated admonition to “wait until you see what’s coming” suggests a broader enforcement strategy is imminent, potentially targeting leaders in states and cities that defy federal immigration laws.

For many Americans, particularly those in border communities, Homan’s hardline approach resonates as a response to concerns about crime linked to illegal immigration. However, critics argue that targeting sanctuary officials risks escalating tensions between federal and local governments, potentially undermining community trust in law enforcement.

Sanctuary Policies and Federal Law Violations

Sanctuary jurisdictions, often governed by Democratic leaders, adopt policies that restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE, such as refusing to honor detainer requests or sharing information about undocumented immigrants. These policies, proponents argue, protect immigrant communities and foster trust with local police. However, Homan and the Trump administration contend that such actions violate 8 U.S. Code § 1324, which imposes penalties for knowingly or recklessly aiding undocumented immigrants in evading federal authorities.

A notable example is Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who issued a memo on April 18 instructing state employees to obstruct ICE operations by limiting cooperation when agents arrive at government facilities. Such directives, according to Homan, cross into felony territory by actively impeding federal law enforcement. The arrests of judges in New Mexico and Wisconsin illustrate the administration’s willingness to act on these violations, with Homan emphasizing that no official—regardless of position—is above the law.

The legal framework of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 is broad, covering actions like transporting undocumented immigrants within the U.S. or shielding them from detection. Enhanced penalties apply if the offense endangers lives or involves organized smuggling, which the administration links to violent crimes attributed to some undocumented immigrants. This legal foundation underpins Homan’s threat of prosecutions, positioning sanctuary policies as direct challenges to federal authority.

Trump’s Executive Order and Habeas Corpus Debate

President Trump’s recent executive order, signed to address sanctuary jurisdictions, threatens to withhold federal funding from cities and states that fail to comply with immigration enforcement. This move complements Homan’s enforcement strategy, aiming to pressure local governments into alignment with federal priorities. The order also directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to evaluate additional legal actions, potentially including criminal prosecutions, against non-compliant jurisdictions.

More controversially, Trump has indicated he may consider suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus for undocumented immigrants to bypass judicial obstacles. The Writ of Habeas Corpus, enshrined in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention in court. Suspension is permitted only in cases of “rebellion or invasion” when public safety is at risk, a power historically exercised by Presidents Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt in Hawaii post-Pearl Harbor.

Trump’s invocation of an “invasion” by undocumented immigrants, particularly alleged gang members like those from Tren de Aragua, aligns with his use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations. However, suspending Habeas Corpus would be a drastic measure, raising constitutional concerns. Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court has upheld the right to habeas review even for non-citizens, as seen in cases like Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which extended habeas protections to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Any attempt to suspend the writ would likely face immediate legal challenges from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act provide context. In April 2025, the Court allowed deportations under the 1798 law but mandated that detainees receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to file habeas petitions in the district of their detention, typically Texas. This requirement aims to ensure due process, though critics argue that the complexity of habeas filings and language barriers may limit access to justice for many immigrants.

Implications for Federal-State Relations

The confrontation between the Trump administration and sanctuary jurisdictions represents a significant escalation in the ongoing debate over immigration policy. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York have long argued that their policies protect vulnerable communities and prevent racial profiling. Conversely, the administration views these jurisdictions as undermining federal law, accusing them of enabling criminal activity by shielding violent offenders from deportation.

Homan’s threats of felony charges, combined with Trump’s executive order, signal a multi-pronged strategy to dismantle sanctuary policies. The arrests of judges and the potential prosecution of elected officials like governors or mayors could deter other jurisdictions from maintaining sanctuary status. However, such actions risk deepening political divides, as Democratic leaders vow to resist what they see as federal overreach.

The debate over Habeas Corpus suspension further complicates the landscape. While Trump’s supporters argue that extraordinary measures are justified to address border security, opponents warn of a dangerous precedent that could erode constitutional protections for all individuals, citizen or non-citizen. The historical rarity of habeas suspension—limited to extreme circumstances like war or rebellion—underscores the gravity of such a proposal, which would likely trigger a constitutional crisis if implemented.

Public opinion remains divided. A recent poll indicated that 45% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, a higher rating than on other issues, reflecting support for his hardline stance. Yet, immigrant rights advocates argue that targeting sanctuary officials and limiting due process threatens the rule of law, potentially deterring immigrants from engaging with local authorities, even as victims of crime.

Our Take

Tom Homan’s unequivocal threat to prosecute sanctuary officials for felony violations of federal immigration law marks a pivotal moment in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. The arrests of judges and the looming prospect of charges against elected leaders signal an uncompromising approach to dismantling sanctuary policies. While these actions may resonate with those prioritizing border security, they risk inflaming tensions with state and local governments, potentially undermining cooperative law enforcement efforts.

The suggestion of suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, though not yet enacted, is a deeply concerning proposition that threatens the foundational principles of due process. The Constitution’s strict limits on habeas suspension reflect its role as a bulwark against arbitrary detention, and any attempt to circumvent this protection would likely provoke significant legal and societal backlash. As the administration presses forward, it must balance its enforcement goals with the imperative to uphold constitutional norms, ensuring that its actions do not erode the very freedoms it claims to protect.