Published September 29, 2026 at 5:21 PM ET · Updated September 29, 2026 at 8:52 PM ET
Rep. Jordan: sheriffs sue their own states over sanctuary policies
1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by Breitbart. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
Rep. Jordan said that sheriffs are suing their own states over sanctuary policies. The statement was reported by Breitbart.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Breitbart reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 1 d ago from Breitbart.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Printz v. United States holds that the federal government may not conscript county sheriffs to enforce a federal regulatory program. Arizona v. United States holds that state immigration provisions obstructing the federal removal system are preempted. The suits by sheriffs therefore turn on whether state sanctuary policies obstruct federal removal, which remains unsettled.
Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The federal government may not compel state or local executive officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The Brady Act's interim command that county sheriffs (CLEOs) conduct background checks on handgun purchasers — and the companion duty to accept Brady Forms from dealers — is unconstitutional, extending New York's anti-commandeering rule from state legislatures to state executive officers. Congress cannot circumvent the prohibition by conscripting the states' officers directly, regardless of how minimal the burden or how important the federal policy.
Arizona v. United States 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Vote: 5-3 (Kagan, J., took no part) · Opinion: Kennedy
Three SB 1070 provisions are preempted: §3 (state crime for failure to carry federal alien-registration documents — field preemption; the federal registration scheme occupies the field), §5(C) (state crime for unauthorized aliens seeking or performing work — conflict/obstacle preemption; Congress deliberately chose employer sanctions, not worker criminalization, in IRCA), and §6 (warrantless state arrests of aliens believed removable — obstacle to the federal removal system, which vests removal discretion in federal officials).
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
