>> The Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement in the city is sparking a number of legal battles.

Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino is heading to court tomorrow amid accusations of using tear gas without justification during a raid in Little village last week, local law enforcement is also caught in the mix as they respond to clashes between protesters and federal agents.

Sometimes themselves getting hurt in the process.

And as the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a potential National Guard deployment here, some worry about blurring the line between federal law enforcement and local police authority.

Joining us now to discuss it all are David Franklin, associate professor of law at DePaul University.

Franklin currently teaches constitutional law and was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mitchell Davis, chief of police in south suburban Hazel Crest.

He has served in leadership roles with many policing organizations, including the Illinois Association Association of Chiefs of Police and is a member of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and standards Board.

We also invited representatives of the Illinois State Police Cook County Sheriff and the Chicago Police Department join us.

But they've all declined.

Gentleman.

I think the 2 of you for joining us.

Chief Michel starting with use, we've seen federal agents deploying tear gas on people protesting raids.

Some Chicago police officers have also been exposed like and that I spree that happened down the East side neighborhood earlier this month.

What do you make of some of the tactics in the operations and how they've escalated?

>> Thanks, Fred, is for having What's going on local law enforcement is getting caught in the middle.

What's happening with federal agencies?

We work collaboratively every day with our federal partners throughout the nation and what the ice enforcement is going on now, those are federal issues and we don't have any jurisdiction over those issues.

But we are also responsible not allowing for federal agents to be harmed by no matter how we we might feel about it.

the Chicago police officers that you saw being tear gas along with the demonstrators an example almost a worst-case scenario, putting us in the middle of something that we have no jurisdiction over.

We're not initiating anything.

We're not participating.

But at the same time we get dragged into a fight that we didn't start.

>> to that point, you know, I think some supporters of ice and in the administration would say that those protesters are are acting aggressively themselves.

They're throwing something at at the agents or getting too close as the agents are trying to do their jobs.

>> Due to local police today have any authority or jurisdiction to challenge any of these federal operations.

>> No, ma'am, we do These are once immigration is not a state issue is a federal issue and that they are carrying out what they've been instructed to do it wants to get presents challenges in that it's not collaborative effort.

That's challenge that we have.

I can't imagine any off or summit leader that would turn down help that is properly done.

But it's not being properly It We have immigrants or anyone this in our community, this wreaking havoc for this breaking the law.

This causing problems in our community.

If we if they came to us and say, hey, chief Davis was going on in your towns, how can we help in?

Are there people in your town that we can possibly use these federal laws to get them out of the community and out of the country?

Well, I wouldn't choose to deal with, but that's not what's going on.

You know, that are coming at collaborating with And it once again is putting us into the middle of something that truly not start.

>> David Franklin, same question about whether local police have any authority or jurisdiction.

For example, there is the court order that requires them to announce that they're about to deploy tear gas, some of the videos which suggests they are not doing that before.

doing it on and then therefore police officers themselves get exposed.

There's also the city's executive order that they're not supposed to use any city property.

>> But local police can't really enforce any of those.

>> Yeah, so I mean, it's a general matter constitutionally speaking, federal officers are not limited by state law.

There's a clause in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause that says federal law is supreme over state law and that's been interpreted for a very long time to mean that basically with a few exceptions, the states are not allowed to limit or regulate what federal officers do.

However.

Federal officers are still bound by federal law, including the Constitution.

So there's a First Amendment that protects freedom of speech.

There's a 4th Amendment that bars the use of excessive force and those can be the basis for court orders like the one you mentioned concerning the use of tear gas or pepper spray on peaceful protesters.

>> Chief Michel, local law enforcement agencies.

As you said, you know, you will typically when you're working with federal law enforcement partners like FBI or alcohol, Tobacco and there's some coordination.

How does that coordination work?

>> Primarily most of the times, especially in our area, but throughout the country as well.

We have task forces.

So we partners have people assigned to task forces and oftentimes they're assigned task force 20 full-time.

And then there are some task forces is activation standpoint and even if we're working on individual investigations, kind of lead and to lead over into some of the areas that federal officers are X percent will reach out to them for their assistance.

And we have always not just he's a freshman, all local law enforcement is always has a tremendous partnerships with those federal organizations.

>> David Franklin, Trump administration, they are agreeing to this 30 day extension of the temporary restraining order that blocks the deployment of National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas into the city were still waiting, as we mentioned for the Supreme Court to weigh on that as the Justice Department has requested, what is the constitutional rationale that the administration is using for the industry?

>> Well, you know, let me just say, first of all, the situation that we have here with the president ordering are trying to order troops into American cities is not normal.

It's not acceptable.

We have a long constitutional tradition in this country of keeping troops out of the business of domestic enforcement.

And as I mentioned, we have a First Amendment that protects peaceful protest.

So the legal rationale such as it is, is that there are federal statutes that authorize the president to call up and federalize state national guards.

But he has to meet certain factual threshold before he can do that.

So the president has to show, for example, that he is incapable of enforcing federal law without the presence of the National Guard and what the district judge here in Chicago held and what the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, including Trump appointed judge and a George W George HW Bush appointed judge.

Was that the president simply had not met that factual predicate.

There is not a situation right now in Chicago that renders the federal officials, you know, unable or incapable of enforcing federal law.

But as this, you know, what we're seeing in the streets continues to sort of escalate.

>> Could the administration not make the case to the Supreme Court?

I mean, I doubt there will be a hearing, but in their in their documentation of their arguments the Supreme Court, not look at the situation say actually, this is difficult federal agents to enforce.

Well, that's what I'm afraid.

The Supreme Court is going to do.

You know, it is a problem of the Trump administration's own making.

>> But that's their strategy, right?

They want to provoke they they they want to inflame and then they want to look at that and say, see, we've got a situation here where were incapable of enforcing federal law or even call it a rebellion insurrection or an invasion if used all of those words.

But they're all false.

But but I'm afraid that the Supreme Court, very same Supreme Court gave President Trump effectively total immunity from criminal prosecution might well give him a blank check.

You know, total deference to his factual findings as the predicate bringing in the National Guard in a situation like Chief Michel, what are some of the concerns with have go ahead within?

But having National Guard troops on the ground?

>> Absolutely.

And I go back to it again.

It's initially when we do that, we really don't.

We're not sure.

I know that the attorney just mention one means.

But initially it was said that we're bringing National Guard into figure it a crime to help with crime.

Well, once again, if someone wants to give us help.

So so, you know, the first national vice president of an organization called National Organization of Black Law Enforcement executives and Nation.

Why we're not turning away help as once again.

Let's do it.

Constructively.

If you come into Somebodys First of National Guard.

They're not police officers know that they're not law enforcement training, but they could help us in some Let's collaborate where you have problem areas, where can we use some extra bodies?

And we tell them strategically this is what we need.

The assistance in this.

How most effectively be Don't just send folks see without having a plan.

And that puts us now behind the 8 ball when we are not lab or not most effectively using the help that's being provided to us by the federal government.

>> Chief, you know, you know, as we're looking at some of this video, right?

But we're we're talking about the Illinois State Police, for example, are assisting in Broadview, but just region-wide, you know, we've got multiple law enforcement agencies that work here at state police, Cook County Sheriff Municipal Police.

You've got CPD in the suburbs.

You've got municipal police there.

And then you've got the deployment of all these federal agencies with or without coordination with folks on the ground.

Could there be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen?

>> They're absolutely could You know, let's let's not also forget the disruption that happens with the community.

Trust local law enforcement Weaver caught.

We challenge is what we've worked so hard to build trust within our communities.

And now you have people who are coming in their mask.

They're coming in.

oftentimes they had not identified was a person or agency and they come in and they disrupt things and then they leave to deal with the aftermath.

And then, you know, are national president for normal has mentioned in the past that, you know, communities of color had to deal with this some time ago.

But is that a company with mask on it why do that?

And they came in taking people and now it's happening in a new era and we've got to be cautious about what we're doing.

>> David Franklin, you know, we've gotten multiple jurisdictions happening here.

What same question to you sort of, you know, what sort of complications are we talking about when trying to go about, you know, a federal deployments, the way the president says is attempting.

>> Well, I think it's clear that the the president doesn't really care about law enforcement.

He is switching his rationale from immigration to crime control back to immigration as the needs of the new cycle sued him.

But this is a president who is the 34 time convicted felon.

Who doesn't seem to care about the criminal laws that are being violated by, for example, the protesters on January 6th who he gave blanket pardons to.

Right.

So he's perfectly content to pardon protesters who attacked police.

And I'm sure if it came to it, he would give pardons to police who attacked protesters.

If the protesters opposed So, yes, I think the situation where you have multiple jurisdictions on the ground.

Is the situation of chaos that's been brought to us because of the Trump administration's policy, not in spite of Im in the Trump administration.

The in a press release today from Department of Homeland Security there making the case that they have removed more than half a million immigrants.

They're referring to them as illegal aliens.

And we heard how upset Mayor Johnson got over the use of that term over the weekend.

>> But some 527,000 deportations, including another 1.5 million people who have voluntarily self deported so that Trump administration is making the case that what they're doing is working and meeting the president's a mandate.

Governor Pritzker and we've got 30 seconds.

He's created a commission to document what he says or all of these abuses by federal immigration agents.

Could this actually be useful in the future?

Oh, absolutely.

I think if people making videos of people are pulling out their phones and >> documenting what's going on, all of that can be used as evidence in court and in the court of public opinion took really try to rally people around the notion that this is an American.

It's not normal and it's not acceptable, OK, that's where we'll have to leave history still in the making.

Of course, David