Defending the Rule of Law: When Political Resistance Becomes Obstruction of Justice and Insurrection

By the Emeritus Council Team

NOTE: The following is not a formal legal opinion.

Defying Federal Authority: Why Political Resistance to Lawful Immigration Enforcement Risks Obstruction and Insurrection

Defending the Rule of Law: When Political Resistance Becomes Obstruction of Justice and Insurrection

The United States is founded on the principle of the rule of law—a system of governance where no individual, including elected officials, is above the law. Federal laws and court orders are integral to this framework, ensuring national cohesion and uniform application of justice. However, when politicians intentionally resist or plan to defy the lawful authority of the federal government, particularly on contentious issues like immigration and deportation, their actions may cross a line into obstruction of justice or even insurrection.

The Duty to Uphold Federal Law

Elected officials take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This includes federal statutes and judicial orders. When a state or local government refuses to enforce or actively obstructs federal laws—such as the deportation of individuals who have been determined to be unlawfully present in the country—it undermines the integrity of the nation’s legal system.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.” While states may challenge federal laws in court, once those laws are deemed valid and enforceable, resistance to their implementation is not a matter of political discretion—it is a violation of the law.

Obstruction of Justice

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1503) defines obstruction of justice as an act that impedes the due administration of justice, including actions that interfere with federal court orders or the execution of federal mandates. Politicians or officials who implement policies, such as “sanctuary” measures, that intentionally obstruct federal immigration enforcement agents or deportation proceedings could be considered in violation of this statute.

Examples of obstruction might include:

  • Blocking access to individuals subject to deportation orders: If a state or city actively prevents federal agents from carrying out deportations, this directly impedes federal operations.

  • Refusing cooperation: Local officials who direct law enforcement not to communicate or coordinate with federal agencies could be seen as obstructing justice.

  • Shielding individuals: Providing sanctuary or intentionally harboring individuals subject to lawful removal orders may cross into criminal conduct.

When obstruction is systemic and involves coordination by state or local leaders, it elevates the threat to federal authority and the rule of law.

The Line Between Resistance and Insurrection

The U.S. Constitution defines insurrection in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, which empowers Congress to call forth the militia to suppress “Insurrections” against the authority of the United States. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2383) further criminalizes insurrection, defining it as engaging in any rebellion or resistance against the authority of the United States or its laws.

While resistance to federal authority may start as political posturing, it can escalate into acts of insurrection when:

  1. State or local governments refuse to carry out federal laws: A refusal to enforce or implement laws governing immigration could be interpreted as rebellion, particularly when those laws are upheld as constitutional.

  2. Leaders encourage others to disobey federal mandates: Politicians advocating defiance of federal immigration laws or court rulings risk inciting rebellion against lawful authority.

  3. Organized obstruction disrupts federal operations: Creating barriers to federal enforcement that extend beyond passive resistance constitutes active rebellion against the federal government.

The Civil War offers a historical precedent for understanding when defiance transforms into insurrection. Southern states refused to recognize federal authority, a decision that led to their secession and the eventual armed conflict. While the context of modern disputes may differ, the principle remains the same: systemic, organized defiance of lawful authority threatens national unity and the rule of law.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Refusal to comply with federal immigration enforcement raises critical constitutional issues:

  • Erosion of federal authority: If states or localities can nullify federal laws or court orders, the cohesion of the United States as a single nation is undermined.

  • Violation of federal mandates: The federal government has exclusive authority over immigration matters under the Constitution. Resistance to lawful deportations infringes on this authority.

  • Undermining public trust: Political defiance of lawful orders erodes public confidence in government institutions and sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of laws.

Accountability for Lawbreaking Politicians

Politicians who refuse to comply with federal mandates or encourage defiance must be held accountable to preserve the rule of law. Potential legal actions include:

  • Criminal charges: Federal prosecutors could pursue charges of obstruction of justice or aiding and abetting under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1503 or 18 U.S.C. § 1324 (related to harboring undocumented individuals).

  • Civil penalties: Lawsuits against state or local governments could compel compliance with federal mandates.

  • Impeachment or removal: Elected officials who defy federal laws may face removal from office through state or local processes, or, in extreme cases, through federal intervention.

Conclusion: Upholding the Rule of Law

Resistance to lawful federal authority is not an act of political courage—it is a violation of the oath of office and the Constitution. When politicians refuse to enforce or actively obstruct federal immigration laws, they risk crossing into obstruction of justice or even insurrection. The rule of law is not optional, and the federal government must act decisively to ensure that no state, locality, or individual undermines its authority.

The integrity of the nation’s legal system depends on a united commitment to enforce and respect its laws. Those who deliberately subvert this principle must face accountability to protect the foundation of American democracy.

References: