Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws

Swim19 · 03-06-2018, 11:39 PM

Quote:

The Trump administration escalated what had been a war of words over California’s immigration agenda, filing a lawsuit late Tuesday that amounted to a pre-emptive strike against the liberal state’s so-called sanctuary laws.

The Justice Department sued California; Gov. Jerry Brown; and the state’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, over three state laws passed in recent months, saying they make it impossible for federal immigration officials to do their jobs and deport criminals who were born outside of the United States. The Justice Department called the laws unconstitutional and asked a judge to block them.

The lawsuit was the department’s boldest attack yet against California, one of the strongest opponents of the Trump administration’s efforts to curb immigration. It also served as a warning to Democratic lawmakers and elected officials nationwide who have enacted sanctuary policies that provide protections for undocumented immigrants.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions planned to say on Wednesday at a law enforcement event in Sacramento, according to prepared remarks. “I believe that we are going to win.”
The battle pits President Trump and Mr. Sessions, immigration hard-liners, against Mr. Brown and Mr. Becerra, who have emerged as outspoken adversaries who have helped energize opposition to Mr. Trump and vowed to preserve the progressive values that they believe California embodies.

Mr. Brown called the lawsuit a “political stunt.”

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” Mr. Brown said in a statement. “Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!

Quote:

One, the California Values Act, strictly limits state and local agencies from sharing information with federal officers about criminals or suspects unless they have been convicted of a serious crimes. The law, which took effect Jan. 1, was the centerpiece of the state legislature’s effort to thwart the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/u...imes&smtyp=cur

Demise · 03-07-2018, 12:28 AM

It'll fail on 10th amendment grounds.

AleiaTheEnchanted · 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

It'll fail on 10th amendment grounds.

For anyone who is wondering what's the 10th Amendment. Btw, do you have some law background? You know a lot about law esp. immigration.

Quote:

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. This amendment means that anything the Constitution does not mention can be considered by states as part of their powers if they wish to do so.

DreamerSD23 · 03-07-2018, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

It'll fail on 10th amendment grounds.

I'm not sure that it will, the Plenary Power Doctrine has always been used to justify Executive overreach in immigration policy.

UnknownUser · 03-07-2018, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

It'll fail on 10th amendment grounds.

Some say 10th amendment is obsolete. Unless California is ready to foot all its funding, I don’t see California winning.

Swim19 · 11:40 AM

Informative article on Vox about the upcoming lawsuit:

Quote:

Sessions’ lawsuit, legally speaking, is about ensuring that the feds can use any tool in the toolbox of federal immigration enforcement policy, without any restrictions from progressive cities and states. Politically speaking, it’s the next phase in a battle the Trump administration and California are equally enthusiastic about having: an ongoing culture war between progressive politicians who feel a duty to make their immigrant residents feel as safe as possible, and an administration (and its backers) whose stated policy is that no unauthorized immigrant should feel safe.

The lawsuit is mostly a fight to let government employees and business owners cooperate with ICE if they want

The administration’s new lawsuit doesn’t address all of California’s restrictions on cooperation — including some of the “sanctuary” policies that Sessions and other Trump administration officials have complained the most about (like limits on when local jail officials can agree to hold unauthorized immigrants for 48 hours after they’d otherwise be released so that federal agents can pick them up).

Instead, it aims at pieces of 3 different laws California passed last year: one that strictly limits law-enforcement cooperation with ICE; one restricting what employers can do when ICE engages in workplace raids; and one about reviews of immigration detention facilities

It's too much to post the whole article. It goes into detail about each of the three different laws:

SB 54 (California Values Act): The “sanctuary” law.

AB 103: The detention-review law.

AB 450: The workplace-raid law.

Quote:

The DOJ argues that these restrictions “have the purpose and effect of interfering with the enforcement of the [federal] prohibition on working without authorization.”

This is basically the heart of the lawsuit: that California passed laws that are designed to stop the federal government from enforcing its laws, and that’s not permissible under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. (In a subplot, the lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. US in 2012, which struck down parts of a state immigration enforcement law passed by Republicans who thought the Obama administration was shirking its duty on immigration.)

In the federal government’s view, “California has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement.” But California, of course, argues it does: that protecting the safety and well-being of California residents means forcing ICE to meet higher standards of due process before engaging in actions that can affect not only unauthorized immigrants but legal immigrants and US citizens. And this is where the real divide lies.

Quote:

But picking a fight with Democratic politicians — especially in liberal-caricature California — on behalf of cops is the best possible frame for the Trump administration politically. Ever since the presidential primary, Trump’s gotten leverage out of attacking “sanctuary cities” for harboring criminals; it’s allowed him to use his favorite theme — that immigrants are criminal and dangerous — while attacking his political opponents.

The legal prospects of the new lawsuit aren’t very good in the short term — even if the DOJ prevails in the district court, it’ll have to go through the liberal (and presidentially antagonized) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Politically, though, it’s less important that the Trump administration wins this fight than that it’s picking it at all — it’s reminding its base who the good guys and bad guys are.

Of course, that’s also true for the California government — it’s just that the “good guy” and “bad guy” labels are reversed. California has all but courted a lawsuit from the Trump administration. Attorney General Xavier Becerra left a promising career in the House of Representatives to lead the legal resistance on the West Coast.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ration-law-doj

Demise · 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamerSD23

I'm not sure that it will, the Plenary Power Doctrine has always been used to justify Executive overreach in immigration policy.

"Federal law is superior to state law, but states do not have to use their resources to enforce federal law." - Prigg v. Pennsylvania (US Supreme Court, 1842)

Basically, a state may not directly interfere with federal law enforcement, but a local police department doesn't have to abide by any requests by the feds to help them.

Maybe 10th amendment is the wrong thing here, but essentially that's how Medicare expansion almost got struck down by US Supreme Court, in that the federal government couldn't order the states to do it, so it basically ended up as an opt-in program after judicial review.

catportal · 03-07-2018, 07:37 PM

Federal law supersedes State law but States cannot be compelled to use their resources to enforce Federal law. However, there are some work arounds like tying enforcement to appropriations under commerce clause, which effectively forces States to enforce Federal laws.

Demise · 03-08-2018, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catportal

Federal law supersedes State law but States cannot be compelled to use their resources to enforce Federal law. However, there are some work arounds like tying enforcement to appropriations under commerce clause, which effectively forces States to enforce Federal laws.

You really think that'd pass under the current congress? If Trump tried to overstep executive authority he'll be tied up in even more lawsuits.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

April

Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws