Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Judge rejects Trump administration lawsuits blocking 2 California sanctuary laws

Judge rejects Trump administration lawsuits blocking 2 California sanctuary laws

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.


UnCivilServant | July 10, 2018 at 7:21 am

Assembly Bill 450 that forces companies to inform workers within 72 hours of any federal requests to inspect employment records

I’m torn on this one. A person should know if the government is poking around in their employment records, but it’s also compelled speech with regards to the employer.

I’m also somewhat shocked the judge got something right with regards to saying California can’t force people to refuse to cooperate with the feds.

    Arminius in reply to UnCivilServant. | July 10, 2018 at 9:15 pm

    Why should the employee know?

    Those employment records belong to the employer, not the employee. If an applicant gives me a social security card to establish ability to legally accept work in this country when filling out the I9 form and say a driver’s license to establish identity, the originals belongs to the employee. But the copies that I make of them are my property.

    If they turn out to be well maid fraudulent documents because the employee is in fact an illegal alien, oh well.

Another Judge who refuses to believe he is still in “Kansas”. He’s well on his way down the Yellow Brick Road.

…”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.”

DJ Trump: making leftists care anout federalism again.

ICE just flood the zone with agents and start massive raids throughout Kali. Focusing particularly on court houses and schools. And since Kali cant impede ICE operations but can’t be required to help, then provide ICE with a military escort for security. Strykers would be a nice touch.

    Fen in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2018 at 11:39 am

    Funny you mention that. During the LA Riots we (3D LAR BN, USMC out of 29 Palms) were put on air akert. I was staffing the S-3 (ops) and saw the route overlays. Our mission would have been to secure key sections of interstate around and within LA. And we were told to begin stowing our packs inside the LAVs instead of hanging on the outside as usual, indicating that we would he rolling through crowds of hostile foot traffic.

    We were never called in. But I remember thinking my civics classes taught this was not legal (US Marines used as domestic riot control). Perhaps we were the fallback for the riots getting so out of hand that Martial Law would need to be declared. I’m a bit fuzzy because they had us on a watch schedule for over a monrh that only included about 4 hrs sleep per day.

    But our LAV-25s would have been a perfect fit. Wheeled not tracked.

      Geologist in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 3:41 pm

      Fen, I thought that the posse comitatus act would have prohibited the use of the Marines to suppress riots within the US borders.

      There was some kind of exception that they “found” to permit the Marines and Army to assist in quelling disturbances in those riots you referenced (1992 L.A. Rodney King riots). I am glad that peace was restored, although I am not sure that it was legal.

casualobserver | July 10, 2018 at 11:01 am

Seems to me that having a sanctuary policy, whether city or state, just makes it easier for ICE to some degree. Which state will you allocate more enforcement resources, the one that strongly opposes sanctuaries or the one that encourages it?

And please just get over this “detainer notice” issue. Staff up in places like CA with plenty of agents and personnel to generate warrants. Then see if state employees are willing to go to jail for violating lawful warrants.

    The current blow-back on the refusal of local governments to notify ICE prior to release of illegal aliens is that ICE no longer releases these aliens to local jurisdictions for criminal trials. If this continues, and these people are deported without being tried, then the victims of their crimes are going to go ballistic. This leaves the state with options of trying these people in absentia or petitioning for extradition from another country.

Besides the fact that not entity, either governmental or private, is allowed, under federal law, to obstruct federal agents in the performance of their duty, under federal law, if the courts rule that a state or local government can refuse to assist federal authorities in the enforcement of said laws, the feds can do the same thing. As long as federal agencies do not violated federal law, then they can refuse to assist local authorities in the area of law enforcement.

Think what the effect would be if the Feds excluded state and local agencies from NCIC. No warrant checks, criminal history checks, inter agency communications would be significantly reduced. What if the FBI refused to conduct fingerprint checks for non-federal agencies? What if the DEA refused to assist in the eradication of a multi-state drug ring? What if the feds decided to simply stop all of the programs which pour money into state and local LEAs. What if the feds removed all of the terror fighting tools from certain states and told the locals to handle it? The states are making the argument that they do not have the money or resources to effectively enforce local laws now. what would it be like without federal largess?

Now, regardless of the spin in this case, this decision was not unexpected and does nothing. It will be appealed and the 9th Circus will likely uphold it. Then it will be appealed to the SCOTUS, which will be an entirely different kettle of fish. And, in the meantime, the State of California can not prohibit the FEDERAL government from acting to enforce federal law within the state.

Just curious, all those high speed SWAT vehicles that were exc ss Iraq war inventory, etc and given to local police. Dont they require maintenance at federal military installations?

    Arminius in reply to Fen. | July 10, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    They weren’t given to the local agencies. They’re on loan. The feds can take them back.