Mayor Lee Harris and Shelby County Commissioners’ Foolish Stand Against the Trump Administration and ICE Triggers RICO Flashpoints: Government Gangsters Part 3
By: Public Affairs Staff on June 8, 2025
Shelby County, TN – In his hard-hitting exposé Government Gangsters, FBI Director Kash Patel defines government gangsters as officials who abuse power and undermine the rule of law—an apt description of Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris and his allies on the Shelby County Commission, whose actions surrounding politically motivated contracts, grant favoritism, and open defiance of federal and state immigration laws now raise serious legal and constitutional concerns.
In a brazen display of defiance, Shelby County recently landed on the Department of Homeland Security’s “sanctuary jurisdiction” list—a move sharply criticized by both federal authorities and local experts as legally and morally reckless. Named specifically were Shelby County and Nashville, raising alarm about the county’s stance toward federal law enforcement coordination.
Shelby County’s recent designation as a “sanctuary jurisdiction” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has thrust local officials into legal peril, marking deeper turmoil in the county’s Democratic-led leadership under Mayor Lee Harris. Tennessee’s newly enacted SB 6002, effective from July 1, 2025, criminalizes elected officials who vote in favor of sanctuary policies with Class E felonies—punishable by up to six years in prison—while threatening removal from office
Mayor Lee Harris responded defiantly:
“We reject cliched labels that try to divide us up and define us. Shelby County is not a sanctuary jurisdiction, whatever that means. Shelby County is proud to be the most diverse county in Tennessee. And we are proud to be in a nation where due process is usually protected. Unfortunately, here in Shelby County today, like elsewhere in this version of America, Trump’s orders have led to widespread fear in our immigrant communities, due process rights being flouted, and even our churches having to end in-person services out of concern for the safety of their congregation,” he said.
But his dismissal overlooks serious legal implications and political contradictions.
As chief executive of a county now classified as undermining federal law, Harris—and the commissioners who backed him—may be exposing themselves to liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), if found to be engaging in coordinated misconduct in office. RICO’s reach has recently expanded in similar local government corruption cases, with courts willing to hold officials accountable when patterns of legislative misrepresentation and misuse of authority are apparent.
His dismissive tone (“whatever that means”) could be construed as willful disregard of federal law, and his broader remarks directly undermine the constitutional role of the Executive Branch—specifically the President’s lawful authority to enforce immigration laws. By accusing Trump’s administration of causing “due process rights [to be] flouted” and church closures based on “fear,” Harris implies that federal immigration enforcement actions are unconstitutional, without citing any supporting legal authority. That implication, from an elected official, is deeply problematic.
Legal and Political Consequences
By positioning Shelby County as resistant to federal immigration enforcement, Harris risks violating new Tennessee law (SB6002), which classifies such policies as Class E felonies, potentially leading to removal from office and criminal charges. Additionally, federal refusal to cooperate could jeopardize state and federal funding tied to law enforcement and public safety—a potential breach of both SB6002 and the Supremacy Clause.
Sanctuary Policy Violation: A Predicate Act
Under SB 6002, Shelby County’s designation as a “sanctuary jurisdiction” by the Department of Homeland Security forms the basis for predicate acts under § 1961(1) RICO.
SB 6002 makes it a Class E felony—punishable by one to six years in prison—for any local official who “in their capacity as a member of the governing body” votes to adopt a sanctuary policy. Because Shelby County was formally labeled a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” any vote by Mayor Lee Harris or the Democratic Commissioners in favor is not merely a political stance—it would be a criminal act under state law.
Why it counts for RICO: Predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) can include state-law felonies. A willful felony vote by Harris or any Commissioner—especially if part of a larger pattern—satisfies the “racketeering activity” requirement. That’s two predicate acts:
- The felony vote itself.
- Other alleged felonies: bribery, honest-services fraud, wire/federal grant infractions (e.g., $100M More for Memphis Scheme, $5M ARPA-era “racial equity” grants).
Together, these form the “pattern of racketeering activity” needed for a viable RICO claim under § 1962(c), adding powerful legal leverage beyond standard civil rights or contract claims.
Expert View: “A Legal Landmine”
One local criminal justice expert observes: “This puts Harris and the Commission in the crosshairs. If courts find the sanctuary policy part of a coordinated, unlawful scheme—and tied to federal funding misuse or systemic violations—it could constitute a predicate act under RICO. This isn’t just bad PR; it’s legal peril.”
Citing RICO precedent, where coordinated legislative acts are considered criminal enterprises, the sanctuary decision may be interpreted as another layer in a pattern of official misconduct—mirroring earlier RICO claims tied to the $5 million ARPA-backed Racial Equity Fund and the $100 million More for Memphis ordinance improperly promoted by Democratic-led bodies.
Looking Ahead
- A civil RICO suit against Shelby County elected officials is already underway—this sanctuary ordinance may be the latest predicate act.
- Federal prosecutors, aided by DHS classification, could open criminal RICO probes.
- The county risks forfeiting federal and state grants tied to public safety and immigration cooperation.
Mayor Harris’s defiant claim that “clichéd labels” shield Shelby County may offer rhetorical cover, but in legal terms, it amplifies liability. Running a county as a sanctuary jurisdiction could transform administrative policy into a criminal pattern—especially when combined with stolen public funds, secret deals, and reckless displacement of federal law.
About Post Author
