Memphis’ different take on a federal surge

Americans have long struggled with notions of “local justice.” Should state or federal laws sometimes bend to a community’s sensibilities and priorities? In Minneapolis, recent instances of violence by immigration enforcement agents, and sometimes by protesters, point to a federal-local split over immigration policies, not to mention which branch of law enforcement should investigate the violent acts.

Local justice was once so embedded in America that Vermont took until the 1970s to curb a Colonial-era practice of having two nonlawyers, or “side judges,” help decide many court cases alongside a professional judge. Vermonters in the 18th century demanded this 2-for-1 balance because they were wary of the British king’s traveling judges and their appreciation of local values and circumstances.

Yet, for every standoff like the current one in Minneapolis, there are today examples of cooperation in implementing law – whether federal, state, or local. The issues are not always simple. Should Minneapolis police, for example, always protect immigration agents from civilians who try to block enforcement? Should the FBI allow the state of Minnesota to join the investigation into shootings by federal law enforcement? A lack of mutual trust driven by policy differences can exacerbate such issues.