The Denver Gazette ran a piece on Denver joining roughly 140 cities, counties, and elected officials in filing “friend of the court” briefs backing Minnesota and Rochester, New York, in lawsuits brought by the Trump administration over “sanctuary” policies.
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s office frames the federal lawsuits as “punishing” sanctuary cities and calls the effort a “baseless attempt” to rewrite local and state law. The briefs argue that sanctuary policies make jurisdictions safer, claiming they either have no statistical effect on crime or result in lower crime rates by building trust with law enforcement, strengthening local economies, and improving public health access.
The Trump administration’s position, as described in the article, is the exact opposite: sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct immigration enforcement, harbor criminal offenders, and jeopardize public safety.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Denver jumped into two federal cases, U.S. v. The State of Minnesota and U.S. v. The City of Rochester, filing amicus briefs with a big national pile-on of sanctuary-friendly jurisdictions.
- The core claim in the briefs: sanctuary policies make places safer, either lowering crime or at least not increasing it, because trust, economy, and health care. It is a comforting story. It is also a legal filing, not a bedtime story.
- Johnston says Denver’s “historic drop” in homicides and crime came from building trust, and he says immigrants are simply “Denverites.” That’s a nice slogan. It is not an argument.
- The Justice Department’s lawsuits describe “vile and heinous acts,” say sanctuary policies obstruct federal law enforcement, and accuse local leaders of harboring criminal offenders. Both sides are playing for the emotional high ground.
- Meanwhile Denver is considering more local measures in response to stepped-up enforcement, including a proposed ordinance restricting officers from covering their faces and requiring visible identification. Also mentioned: Denver’s legal adventures have gotten pricey, with a Washington law firm tab topping out at $2 million.
My Bottom Line
I know I’m going to sound like an old boomer, but when I lied, there were consequences. Grounded. Mouth washed out with soap. Sometimes worse. Today, when politicians lie, they get re-elected. And this legal filing reads like the kind of “narrative over truth” play that somehow never has a price tag attached to the people pushing it.
Because let’s be real about what this is. It is a court document insisting that “sanctuary policies” make jurisdictions safer. Not “we hope.” Not “we think.” Not “it’s complicated.” It’s a clean, confident claim dropped into a legal brief like it is gospel.
My guess? The legal beagles who filed it knew exactly what they were doing. They know a narrative can be stronger than the truth. They know the press will repeat the headline. They know their base will cheer. And they know that if it turns out to be wrong, the odds of consequences are about as slim as Denver admitting a mistake without a consultant to soften the landing.
So will there never be accountability? Maybe not, until the Great Suburban Normie wakes up from their Netflix-induced slumber and realizes they’re being run on a con. Not a policy disagreement. A con. Words that sound compassionate, wrapped around outcomes nobody is allowed to question, and paid for by taxpayers who keep getting told to shut up and trust the experts.
Source: The Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...