Talibdin “TD” El-Amin
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has laid out a disciplined, legally sound strategy for confronting illegal and heavy-handed ICE operations. His position is straightforward: federal agents are not immune from state criminal law when they act outside their lawful authority. If crimes are committed, they can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted in state court—no exceptions, no special treatment.
Krasner’s framing matters because it strips away political theater and centers the issue where it belongs: criminal conduct. Assault is assault. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Unlawful restraint, obstruction of justice, and homicide are crimes regardless of who commits them or what badge they wear. When ICE agents or military personnel exceed their legal mandate, they step into the jurisdiction of state courts.
The most strategically important element of this model is its insulation from presidential abuse of power. State criminal convictions cannot be undone by a presidential pardon. In a moment when the pardon power has been used as a political shield, Krasner’s approach restores accountability to local communities and juries. Federal authority does not erase state sovereignty.
Why This Model Works
This approach succeeds not because it is confrontational, but because it is legally precise and operationally realistic.
First, it is law-first, not politics-first. Krasner is not asking cities to nullify federal immigration law. He is asking prosecutors and police to enforce existing state criminal statutes when crimes occur. That distinction keeps local governments on firm constitutional ground.
Second, it reasserts local police powers. States and municipalities retain the authority to enforce criminal law within their borders. Federal agents are subject to those laws when acting outside lawful authority. This is settled constitutional doctrine, not activist theory.
Third, it closes the pardon loophole. By prosecuting crimes at the state level, local jurisdictions remove accountability from the reach of presidential pardons. That alone makes the strategy uniquely effective in the current political climate.
Fourth, it creates real deterrence. The prospect of handcuffs, a jury trial, and prison time changes behavior far more effectively than public statements or symbolic resolutions. Clear consequences discourage reckless or abusive conduct.
Finally, it restores public trust. Communities lose faith when they believe law enforcement operates with double standards. Enforcing the law evenly—regardless of federal status—rebuilds legitimacy.
The St. Louis Test
Philadelphia’s model forces hard questions in St. Louis.
To St. Louis Police Chief Robert Tracy:
What is the operational directive when officers witness ICE agents engaging in conduct that meets the elements of a Missouri crime? Are officers empowered to intervene, detain, and refer cases for prosecution, or instructed to defer solely because federal authority is claimed?
To Mayor Cara Spencer:
Has your administration issued clear legal guidance affirming that Missouri criminal law applies to all actors operating in the city? Or does St. Louis effectively grant federal agents a pass when misconduct occurs?
To the St. Louis Circuit Attorney:
If presented with evidence of assault, unlawful restraint, or obstruction of justice by ICE agents, would your office pursue state charges? If not, what specific legal barrier prevents prosecution?
These are not abstract concerns. They go to the core of whether the rule of law is applied evenly or selectively. Philadelphia has demonstrated that cities do not need new legislation to act—only the will to enforce the law already on the books.
The rule of law is strongest when it is consistent. Krasner has drawn a clear line: no one is above the law. The question now is whether St. Louis is prepared to do the same.
