Over a dozen states join Trump’s lawsuit against “Sanctuary State” California
“California’s sanctuary cities policy thumbs its nose at the rule of law.”
Earlier this month, we noted that California faced a lawsuit from the Department of Justice over its new status as a “Sanctuary State“.
Several red and purple states have now boarded this particular “Trump Train”.
Texas and more than a dozen other states led by Republican governors got behind the Trump administration on Monday in its lawsuit over California’s so-called sanctuary laws that protect people in the U.S. illegally.
California’s laws are designed to interfere with or block federal immigration enforcement but the state does not have that authority, the other states said in a court filing in the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against California. The filing in federal court in Sacramento supports the Justice Department’s attempt to block the laws.
The states who have filed currently are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. The filings argue that California’s laws should be blocked on the same grounds that the SCOTUS struck down Arizona’s 2010 immigration law.
The Arizona law required police, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally, made it a crime to harbor immigrants here illegally, and banned them from seeking work in public places.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy said Arizona may have “understandable frustrations” with immigrants who are in the country illegally, but added that it can’t pursue policies that “undermine federal law.”
If Arizona’s laws are overridden by federal law, then so are California’s, the court filing for Texas and the other states said. They cited a legal document signed by California in the fight over Arizona’s law that said the removal of people in the country illegally was up to the federal government.
The South Carolina attorney general cited public safety concerns for his state’s move.
Attorney General Alan Wilson announced Monday the state is filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Trump Administration’s lawsuit against California over state laws that intentionally obstruct the federal government’s ability to enforce the nation’s immigration law.
“I’ve spent my career fighting to uphold the rule of law while California’s sanctuary cities policy thumbs its nose at the rule of law,” Wilson said. “States cannot be allowed to ignore federal laws they don’t like, especially when doing so puts public safety at risk.”
States aren’t the only entities jumping on the bandwagon. Tuesday, California’s own Orange County unanimously voted to join the lawsuit. ABC7 reported:
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to join the Trump administration to challenge California’s sanctuary law.
The board held a closed-door meeting on whether to join the government’s lawsuit against the state over the law, which bars police in many cases from turning over suspects to federal immigration agents for deportation.
The board voted 4-0 to pass a resolution that blasts the state’s sanctuary law.
“We must be certain that we are not providing assistance to undocumented immigrants who have chosen not to follow the rules. We need to look at every tool available to ensure public safety in the general public and homeless population,” said Supervisor Lisa Bartlett.
The supervisors also said they’re going to legally challenge the state’s law in court.
Earlier, activists called on supervisors to abstain from fighting the sanctuary law while playing music and holding signs to protest the decision. Along with the immigrant advocates were supporters of President Trump.
Interestingly, an email to the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office was not immediately returned. Becerra, Legal Insurrection readers will recall, is a general in the state’s War on Trump.
I bet that when he does respond, President Trump will be the main focus of his ire.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The filings argue that California’s laws should be blocked on the same grounds that the SCOTUS struck down Arizona’s 2010 immigration law.”
That is priceless! Cali was quick to jump on the federal law takes precedence when it was something they agreed with. Now the shoe is on the foot, and there is legal precedent for tossing their law.
And that is still CA’s position. The removal of people in the country illegally is entirely up to the federal government, and states may not involve themselves without the feds’ invitation, and need not involve themselves even with such an invitation. That is solidly established law, since at least the 1830s.
I’ll bet he didn’t take that position when the sheriffs refused to implement the Brady Act in the Clinton years. And I’ll bet he cheered like anything when the Supreme Court upheld their right to refuse, on the exact same grounds that the Sanctuary Cities and States are relying on now.
Well Brady Act/SC Ruling
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html
The Brady Act’s interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, §§922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp. 4-34.
(a) Because there is no constitutional text speaking to the precise question whether congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional, the answer to the CLEOs’ challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the Constitution’s structure, and in this Court’s jurisprudence. P. 4.
Not sure why you would think that and Act has higher authority than the constitution:
Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
Big difference that the procedure to background checks.
As Scalia says:
“Contrary to the dissent’s contention, the Brady Act’s direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, §8, as a law “necessary and proper” to the execution of Congress’s Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales.
I would think that “necessary and proper” applies here.
Actually there is not a word in the constitution giving Congress any authority at all over immigration, so a true originalist should oppose all such laws. But the Supreme Court long ago said Congress had plenary power on the topic, so until it changes its mind that’s the way it is.
But CA is not challenging that at all, just as the sheriffs were not challenging the Brady Act’s constitutionality, and nor were the free states challenging Congress’s right and duty to enact the Fugitive Slave laws. Just like them, CA is saying Congress can enact these laws, and ICE can enforce them, but it must do so without any help from states that don’t agree. And the Supreme Court sided with the states; federal slave catchers were free to go wherever they liked and carry out their mandate, but the states they were in were free to refuse them any aid, and to prohibit state magistrates from carrying out the role the federal laws gave them.
First, not sure where you got the term “Federal” slave catcher. Second, some of the issue with the Fugitive Slave Act was to prevent the non-slaves from bearing the cost or liability of returning the slaves.
Kinda different here. The feds are bearing the cost and instead, not catching, but removing the illegal immigrant who is not even closed to being a slave except by the employer.
Slave catchers were authorized by federal law to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws. Thus they were federal agents. Northern states tried to ban their operation and arrest them for enforcing federal law in their territories, and the Supreme Court said no, they couldn’t do that, but they could by legislation ban state magistrates from helping them.
The issue wasn’t cost, it was the state’s opposition to the federal law, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to passively resist, drawing the line only at active interference with the slave catchers.
The situations are exactly parallel. Federal law calls for the arrest of certain residents of the state, and the state disapproves of that law and doesn’t want to help enforce it. Just as in the 1830s, the state may not actively interfere with ICE, but may make life as difficult as possible for them by banning all its officers and subsidiaries from helping them. Whether it can ban private citizens from voluntarily helping the slave catchers is unclear. I suspect not, but in any case Congress can make a law explicitly permitting non-state actors to help ICE, and that would override any state law to the contrary. Whereas a similar law for state actors would break the anti-commandeering doctrine of the tenth amendment.
So Federal Slave Catch is not an accurate statement then. Second, at this time, Slaves were considered property. Are the illegals consider property?
In any case, I still think you are comparing apples to oranges. If anything, illegals are taking entitlements away from citizens. If slaves were stealing from citizens in the North or killing people in the North, the laws would still apply. The government is not the slave catcher here. IF anyone is a slave owner here it is the employer or person benefiting from the illegal’s position here. The push for illegals here is economics, just like the push for slaves were.
Yes, federal slave catcher is a very accurate statement. That’s what they were. And they were immune from state laws that banned their activities, because federal law overrode those state laws. But the state could deny them all cooperation from local authorities. Exactly like ICE.
The only reason you see a difference between ICE and the slave catchers is that you like the current law but not the old one. But our likes and dislikes can’t influence our constitutional analysis. From an objective point of view they’re exactly the same.
In both cases you have people who under federal law are to be arrested, but some states disapprove of that law and wish to do everything they legally can to frustrate its operation. And what the constitution allows them to do is to refuse all cooperation and assistance, and make the federal government enforce it all on its own. More than that they cannot do.
Nope, slavery and immigration are two totally different things. Exactly why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 was created by Madison.
Check out Madison’s Federalist paper 43 and Hamilton’s Federalist paper 32
Federalist 43
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed43.asp
Federalist 32
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed32.asp
Federalist 43:
“May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of citizens may become a majority of persons, by the accession of alien residents… or of those whom the constitution of the state has not admitted to the right of suffrage?”
There is an American Thinker out there somewhere that addressed this too.
If you think about it, Slave were forced here and earned their right to citizenship because of government policy. Illegal aliens came here will out following a fair law of citizenship. Those like my grand parents and great great grand parent that did follow the path to citizenship and fought in wars for this country following the law.
The intent behind fugitive slave returned to the owner and the deportation of illegals are two very different things. In fact I am guessing the owner does not what their citizen back.
Since naturalization is in Article I it pretty much IS law. It took the 14th Amendment to address the slave issue, which is in the Constitution too.
I don’t buy “federal” slave catch either. The slave compromise was a necessary evil to create this nation and we paid a huge price for it with the civil war.
As Madison warns in 43, by allowing illegal aliens the power to vote or give standing, we abnegate our true foundation.
However, the mayor of Oakland announcing ICE raids is aiding flight of felons. In this case it wasn’t aiding ICE but actively interfering with Federal law enforcement.
No more so than warning the public the existence of a speed trap, or announcing that the slave catchers are in town. Informing a specific person that he is about to be arrested probably crosses the line, but such a general announcement is probably protected speech.
Allowing illegals to speed is ok, but charging citizens for speeding is not?
I would love to see the government tell me when there is a speed trap, too. Weak example.
Reagan was the Teflon President thanks to Pat Schroeder.
The term originates was coined by Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO) when she took to the House floor in 1983 and said of President Ronald Reagan: “He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency: He sees to it that nothing sticks to him.”
A term that seem to stick (ha!)
Since the new work of the day is Pivot, Trump should be the Pivot President. Anything thrown at him seems to pivot. Like Trump sex, Weinstein, Frankin and Connors go down.
Gun Control – huge gun sales and focus on crime and opiod issues.
Xavier Becerra? Methinks his name is not Becerra, it’s Bizzarro.
Dainty little thing Becerra got caught with his hands in the cookie jar.:
California’s illegal alien-supporting attorney general, Xavier Becerra, has been curiously silent about that fake server he handed over to cops to obstruct their Imran Awan investigation
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/09/caught_giving_cops_a_fake_server_xavier_becerra_clams_up.html
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction on any lawsuit between the States. (Of course the Supreme Court does not have to follow the Constitution. It can cleverly state that the District Court shares “dual original jurisdiction”)
Now that States have joined in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs can seek to have the Supreme Court hear the case at the trial level.
Is there any legal mechanism to strip a state of its status and return it to a territory? May not have representation in Congress, may not participate in the Electoral College.
may not participate in the Electoral College.
It’s possible for the electors from a state to not be recognized. It happened in the Presidential election of 1876. The crisis in that case was, well, let’s just say complex. But the shortage of electors meant no majority for either candidate, Samuel Tilden or Rutherford Hayes.