GoPoPup Reporting for Duty

This week we are talking about sanctuary cities. Can the federal government force local police to help enforce federal immigration law, or does federalism draw a line the feds cannot cross. Read the scenario, then answer all three parts like it is the real AP exam. You have 15 minutes. Go.

Connects to: Unit 1 - Federalism / State vs. Federal Power / Anti-Commandeering

STUDENT NAME

Todays Scenario

Sanctuary city and sanctuary state policies limit how much local and state police cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. A common version of the policy tells local jails not to hold a person past their scheduled release date just because federal agents asked for extra time through an immigration detainer, unless a judge has signed off. During 2025 and 2026 several states and large cities expanded these policies while the federal government pushed back by threatening to cut certain federal grant funding and by filing lawsuits that argue the policies interfere with federal immigration law. Local officials have responded that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to force state or local officers to carry out federal law, pointing to a line of Supreme Court cases about commandeering. Courts have generally agreed that the federal government cannot compel local police to make immigration arrests, though disputes continue over how much control Washington can attach to federal money that cities and states depend on.

Based on general reporting on sanctuary city policy and federal funding disputes from national news coverage, as of 2026. Source link: AP News: Immigration

Describe the anti-commandeering doctrine and explain why it limits the ability of the federal government to force state and local police to enforce federal immigration law.

1 Point

In the context of the scenario, explain how the disagreement between sanctuary cities and the federal government reflects the constitutional principle of federalism.

1 Point

Explain how the federal government use of funding conditions to influence sanctuary city policy relates to the concept of fiscal federalism, including a constraint the Supreme Court has placed on this kind of federal power.

1 Point

15:00

Scoring Guideline - 3 Points Total

PART A1 PT

Award the point if the response correctly describes the anti-commandeering doctrine, meaning that the federal government cannot compel state or local governments or their officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program, and connects this to the reasoning in cases such as Printz v. United States and New York v. United States as the basis for why local police cannot be forced to make federal immigration arrests.

PART B1 PT

Award the point if the response explains that federalism divides power between the national and state governments, that policing power is generally reserved to the states, and that the sanctuary city conflict reflects an ongoing struggle over where the line between federal supremacy and state authority actually falls in the area of immigration enforcement.

PART C1 PT

Award the point if the response explains that fiscal federalism allows the federal government to influence state and local policy by attaching conditions to federal grant money rather than issuing a direct command, and identifies a limit on this power such as the requirement from South Dakota v. Dole that conditions be reasonably related to the purpose of the funding and not so coercive that they amount to compulsion.

Unit 1 - Federalism - Sanctuary Cities

Unit 1 - Types of Democracy