The judge upholds part of a 3rd lawsuit, and a city’s case against the “Sanctuary State” law is proceeding.
A federal judge has just dismissed the federal government’s claim that U.S. law overrules two of California’s “Sanctuary State” laws.
U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez approved California’s motion to throw out the lawsuit related to two of those measures: Senate Bill 54, the sanctuary state law, and Assembly Bill 103, which allows the state attorney general to inspect detention facilities.
Mendez also rejected the Trump administration’s lawsuit against a portion of Assembly Bill 450 that forces companies to inform workers within 72 hours of any federal requests to inspect employment records….
…”Today’s decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “Though the Trump administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law.”
However, the judge did permit the case against a portion of Assembly Bill 450 to proceed.
…Mendez did say the federal government is likely to succeed in its challenge to parts of one law, AB 450, which attempted to bar voluntary cooperation between employers and immigration officials. The judge said the state cannot bar a business from voluntarily granting access to private worksite areas, nor can it stop employers from re-verifying a worker’s employment status or restrict their decision to voluntarily provide access to certain employee records.
Mendez did uphold a requirement in AB 450 that employers give their workers notice of an upcoming inspection of their eligibility documents.
“This court finds that AB 103, SB 54, and the employee notice provision of AB 450 are permissible exercises of California’s sovereign power,” Mendez wrote. “With respect to the other three challenged provisions of AB 450, the court finds that California has impermissibly infringed on the sovereignty of the United States.”
In slightly better news for those of us who appreciate the benefits of strong borders and legal immigration, a judge in a red part of the Golden State will rule next week on whether Huntington Beach’s lawsuit opposing California’s “sanctuary state” protections for undocumented immigrants can move forward this summer.
City Attorney Michael Gates told Judge James Crandall in a conference Monday that the city’s lawsuit differs from the federal lawsuits because Huntington Beach is governed by a city charter rather than state general law.
A new hearing is scheduled to take place July 19 in Orange County Superior Court.
If Crandall rules in the city’s favor, Gates explained, a hearing would take place in August.
Otherwise Crandall could delay the matter if he believes the federal court decisions would void the city’s case.
The Huntington Beach City Attorney also indicated the Mendez decisions will not impact the city’s case.
Gates said the fate of the federal lawsuit, whatever it ultimately may be, should not impact the city’s own litigation.
“They are totally different lawsuits,” he said. “As a charter city, we have autonomy over our local governance. We are arguing that SB54 is unconstitutional as it relates to charter cities only.”
According to the League of California Cities, the state constitution grants a charter city control over “municipal affairs” — such as how it conducts elections and deals with municipal employees. However, charter cities are subject to the same state laws as “general law cities” on matters considered to be of “statewide concern.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.