Unpublished editorial

This Tuesday, Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and Police Chief Todd Schmaderer held a press conference intended to “quell apprehension amplified by national reports of imminent deportations under the new Trump administration,” according to the Nebraska Examiner.

Asked what would happen if federal officials insisted on help, Schmaderer said he doesn’t have to stray from his defined mission: 

“The federal government can’t come one day and give a directive to the Omaha police chief, to the mayor, to say, ‘This is what you’re going to do.’”

The two were responding, as the Associated Press reports, to a new memo written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, which instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to work with a newly formed “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group.” The group will  identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court, according to the memo.

This action, and this memo, are generally being reported nationally as a tool to go after heavily Democratic cities that “hinder” Justice Department anti-immigration efforts, such as via statue, policies or immigrant-friendly court actions. 

But the leading argument is not the most salient one for Omaha. Later in the 3-page memo, we find this: 

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.” (Emphasis added)

Chief Schmaderer is probably banking on that word “lawful” to hold the status quo and allow him to resist any federal “commands” he finds distasteful (or professionally dangerous). But let’s look closely, here in 2025, at the legal parameters of the authority of the executive branch—charged with enforcing the nation’s laws—as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider that one reason Trump is back in office is a series of Trump-friendly rulings by the conservative Court, culminating in Trump v. United States (2024), which grants presidents unqualified immunity from any laws they may break while engaged in acts “within their core constitutional purview.” 

I would argue that Mr. Trump regards his America First crackdown on illegal immigration as a very “core” act with regard to enforcing the law, especially since deporting undocumented immigrants was the main plank of his campaign platform. And, to be clear, those who cross the border without going through channels have broken the law.

But Mr. Trump, as we have seen, breaks the law and then claims political persecution is driving anyone hoping to hold him accountable (those 34 felonies and numerous former federal indictments). Rather than Trump, it is often the DA or prosecutor coming after him whose professional life ends in tatters. So what’s to stop him now, with his immunity ruling in hand, from breaking any law that gets in his way? 

Given the immunity ruling and Trump’s penchant for defining legality under his own terms, it is safe to say that any law designed to constrain this president from executing what he believes to be his “core” functions—to include  punishing people who impede those functions—is no longer a law. It is a “suggestion” at best. And to Trump, any suggestion that his power should be limited is seen as a challenge. 

So what becomes of Omaha? Lincoln? Admirably, you have pledged to tread the legal path and obstain from operating outside your purview, even if so ordered. 

But what of the divergent path the president may believe to be “more” legal—perhaps even “perfect”—given his history and the power of immunity recently bestowed upon him? 

In 2025, we must ask—which of those represents the “legal” choice? It looks like only time will tell.