Swalwell Pledges To Arrest ICE Agents And Take Away Their Driver’s Licenses

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) will not be outdone again.

Recently, Swalwell was outvoted in Congress by a colleague who had died months earlier. 

Now, he is ensuring that, when it comes to violating the Constitution, no one is even close. This week, Swalwell pledged that, if elected California governor, he will arrest ICE officers and take away their driver’s licences.

On MS NOW’s “All In,” Swalwell was asked by host Jason Johnson:

 “What would you do if you are able to be elected as governor of California? … What would you bring to the table as a governor of California?”

Swalwell responded:

“Well, you have immense powers as governor of California and your responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in the state. So if the president is going to send ICE agents to chase immigrants through the fields where they work, what I’m going to do is make sure that they take off their masks and show their faces, that they show their identification. And if they commit crimes that they’re going to be charged with crimes, if it’s falsely imprisoning people, if it’s kidnapping, if it’s assault battery, they’re going to be held accountable. I also think if the governor has the ability to issue driver’s licenses to people in California, if you’re going to wear a mask and not identify yourself, you’re not going to be eligible to drive a vehicle in California. There’s a lot you can do, but most importantly, you have to go on offense. Otherwise, the most vulnerable in our community will always be on defense.”

Democrats appear to be morphing into predecessors like Gov. George Wallace (D., Ala.), pledging to defy federal authority and bar federal agents from their states. Wallace also reportedly threatened to arrest federal officers (and then later backed down when he was threatened with court action).

In an “age of rage,” the most irate and irrational reigns supreme.

From demanding that any Democratic nominee pledge to demolish the new Trump ballroom to opposing parental rights in schools, Swalwell has struggled to find traction with far-left California voters.

However, he is now promising to violate the Constitution. That did not take long. We do not even have a clear idea of who will be the frontrunners in the election. It is like a game of chicken where Swalwell immediately drives off the cliff before anyone gets into their cars.

Ironically, it is precisely what he has accused Donald Trump of doing: disregarding the Constitution when it suits his political agenda.

In case it matters to anyone left in California, he cannot do this. Seizing federal agents sort of went out of constitutional style after the Civil War. The “immense powers as governor of California” do not include dictating what federal officers can wear on their faces or bodies.

The first tiny barrier to Swalwell’s antebellum policies is the Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” United States v. Washington (2022). Since McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, the Supreme Court has consistently struck down state laws that impede federal enforcement.

Moreover, immunity under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) bars criminally charging officials who are properly carrying out their lawful federal duties. For example, in 1890, the Supreme Court ruled In re Neagle that a U.S. Marshal had immunity when a state tried to charge him with murder after he shot and killed an individual attacking a justice.

While the Supreme Court has also stressed that federal immunity does not afford federal employees carte blanche to violate any and all state laws, it has made clear that such state limits must be incidental and nonintrusive. In Johnson v. Maryland (1920), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained:

“It very well may be that, when the United States has not spoken, the subjection to local law would extend to general rules that might affect incidentally the mode of carrying out the employment — as, for instance, a statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets. Commonwealth v. Closson, 229 Mass. 329. This might stand on much the same footing as liability under the common law of a state to a person injured by the driver’s negligence. But even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States. Ex parte Neagle, 135 U. S. 1.”

None of this really matters to Swalwell. He is moving from democrat to demagogue in pledging unconstitutional acts to be sure that no one is farther to the left in the California race. It is the same “politics of contempt” that he has displayed as a member of Congress. Swalwell has always distinguished himself by doing things that few others could stomach, such as mocking a female senator over the death threats that she was receiving from irate liberals.

He also may be right about California voters. While others are struggling to come up with ideas for a state that is facing a crushing debt crisis and top taxpayers fleeing the state, Swalwell is promising chest-pounding theatrics…more jester than governor. He will entertain and distract with measures that will be struck down in courts.

It is the modern equivalent of the Roman games, promising combat with federal officers to thrill the crowd. From California and New York, there is an insatiable appetite for lawfare and disruption. Swalwell will promise chaos and confrontation … and many California voters will love him for it.