We are living in dangerous times. Not dangerous because Russia invaded Ukraine or because of Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israeli citizens in October 2023, although these can lead to worrisome consequences. Dangerous because, for the first time in many decades, leading politicians and many progressive citizens are nullifying federal law.

They are nullifying federal law by declaring that cities and states are “sanctuary cities” and that their jurisdictions will not obey or enforce federal law. The last time this occurred in America was during the 1950s and 1960s, when many Southern leaders and institutions refused to bow to the Supreme Court’s decisions on segregation. This is pure nullification.

The term nullification originates with issues involving South Carolina, commencing in 1828. South Carolina declared that it would not obey and enforce the federal tariffs imposed by Congress in 1828 and 1832. President Andrew Jackson – a Trumpian figure – issued a proclamation on December 10, 1832, condemning nullification as treasonous and affirming the supremacy of the federal government. Congress authorized him to use the military to enforce federal law if necessary.

The true-blue cities run by liberals like Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu have effectively nullified federal immigration law in the same manner as South Carolina in the 1830s. Mayor Wu has reaffirmed Boston as a sanctuary city, pledging to protect immigrant residents who have broken the law from federal immigration enforcement. Like the horrible situation in Minnesota, she has chosen to protect illegal alien criminals and not turn them over to ICE — the federal law enforcement officers who are following laws passed by Congress.

Why do leaders like Mayor Wu refuse to cooperate with ICE and obstruct federal law enforcement officials? After all, 2.8 million illegal aliens were deported during the Obama administration. Why the “resistance” now?

There are two main reasons here. The first is their fierce hatred of Trump and all that he stands for. Second, and perhaps more importantly, progressives want illegal aliens to remain because they see them as their future dependent constituency — as the Somali contingent clearly shows. In other words, let them stay because they will keep us in power. They are a future voting constituency.

Progressives pose as if they hold the moral high ground, showing care and compassion for immigrants, conflating legal immigrants with those who have broken the law. But in reality, their actions are nothing more than a power grab, knowing that their nullification policies will help them maintain a stranglehold on political power in these Democratic jurisdictions. And their nullification ignores the negative consequences to the citizens in their cities — crime, the cost to taxpayers, and resources stretched to the limit.

Nullification is the first and major step toward insurrection. And we have been watching an insurrection in Minneapolis. It is a mirror image of the insurrection in certain Southern states in the 1950s and 1960s during the civil rights movement.

Watch clips of Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett in September 1962 as he defies the Supreme Court and refuses to allow James Meredith to enroll at the University of Mississippi. Like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, he inflamed the local citizenry, who rioted for several days. Two people in the unruly mob were killed, and many were wounded. Sounds like Minnesota.

Responding to this insurrection in Jackson, Mississippi, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation on national TV and spoke these words:

“Our Nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty, and defiance of the law is the surest road to tyranny. The law which we obey includes the final rulings of the courts, as well as the enactments of our legislative bodies. Even among law-abiding men, few laws are universally loved, but they are uniformly respected and not resisted.

“Americans are free, in short, to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For in a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law. If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men, by force or threat of force, could long defy the commands of our court and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge would be sure of his writ, and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.”

When Barnett refused to accede to Kennedy’s demands, Kennedy dispatched the National Guard to settle matters, invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. When President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops, including the 101st Airborne Division, to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, he invoked the same Insurrection Act.

What is the difference between the mobs in Arkansas in 1957 and Mississippi in 1962 and the organized insurrection in Minnesota in 2026? Only that Trump did not send in the National Guard. Perhaps he should have invoked the same Insurrection Act as Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.

These are dangerous times, indeed. It is all too easy to go from the nullification of sanctuary cities to insurrection and then to armed conflict. And what do key Democratic leaders do? They pour fuel on the fire by labeling ICE and other law enforcement officials “Nazis,” “Gestapo,” and “fascists.” This establishes a permission structure that encourages activists to “resist” and obstruct ICE from carrying out their lawful orders. And that brings death, as it did in Mississippi in 1962 and in Minnesota now.

When leading politicians encourage citizens to nullify the law and obstruct law enforcement officials, we have reached a dangerous turning point in America. May we turn away from nullification, which led to insurrection in the 19th century. And that led to Fort Sumter – and the Civil War in 1861.