The Government’s Case Against California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Is on Weak Legal Ground

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the latest move in this administration’s increasingly desperate attempts to bully states and localities into colluding with its draconian detention and deportation agenda. Following a brief aside to blame all immigrants for violent crime, homicides, and opioid overdose deaths, he told a meeting of the California Peace Officers’ Association that the Justice Department had just filed a major lawsuit against the state of California.

The lawsuit challenges three state laws passed and signed into law in 2017: AB 450, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act; AB 103, a detention statute that was part of an omnibus bill; and SB 54, the California Values Act. The DOJ claims that these three laws “have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California.” In fact, these laws simply ensure that state actors comply with the U.S. Constitution and that local law enforcement’s limited resources are not co-opted for federal immigration enforcement purposes except in certain circumstances.

AB 103 expands state oversight of California’s local detention facilities when they hold people under contracts with ICE because federal oversight of the ICE detention system is woefully inadequate. And AB 450 reinforces the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement by requiring employers to see a judicial warrant from ICE before they allow ICE to enter a non-public part of a workplace. The Sessions' lawsuit details the federal government’s objections to these attempts to limit the harm caused by the deportation force that President Trump has unleashed.

But Sessions’ challenge to SB 54 really gets to the heart of this administration’s hostility to jurisdictions that choose to prioritize community safety by disentangling their local criminal law enforcement activities from federal immigration enforcement. SB 54 prohibits local law enforcement in California from using their already limited resources to facilitate the enforcement of federal immigration law, including by:

  • inquiring into someone’s immigration status
  • jailing an individual past their release date based on an ICE detainer request
  • arresting someone based on a civil immigration warrant
  • providing office space in local jails exclusively for immigration authorities
  • using federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters
  • entering into 287(g) agreements to deputize local law enforcement as federal immigration agents
  • participating in joint task forces whose primary purpose is immigration enforcement
  • providing non-public personal information about an individual, including their home or work address, to immigration authorities
  • notifying immigration authorities of an individual’s release date, with a list of exceptions
  • transferring an individual into the custody of immigration authorities without a judicial warrant, but with a list of exceptions.

Though SB 54’s requirements are extensive, the Sessions lawsuit challenges only the final three provisions listed above. It claims that they violate the Supremacy Clause by obstructing the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and by discriminating against the federal government.

The lawsuit’s challenge to these SB 54 provisions primarily rests on its claim that, by prohibiting the sharing of release dates and personal information, SB 54 violates federal law. But the law only prohibits state policies that restrict the sharing of immigration status and citizenship information — not release dates, addresses, or any other personal information. In fact, as one federal court recently put it, “[n]othing in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) addresses information concerning an inmate’s release date.” And another federal court recently held that Philadelphia’s similar policies — which restrict the sharing of people’s addresses and release dates — do not violate federal law.

The government’s other objection to SB 54 is the very reason why SB 54 is constitutional. It argues that the law harms the federal government because it “requires ICE to expend greater time and recourses” to carry out its arrests. But the fact that ICE will have to work harder and expend more of its own resources if states and localities do not assist them with their every request underscores the legality of California’s position.

Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to participate in a federal program. The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in Printz v. United States, where it ruled that the federal government could not command states to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The same principle applies here: The federal government cannot require states to participate in its deportation program. Indeed, no federal law mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents in locating and arresting people.

The federal government is furious at California. But its new lawsuit ignores longstanding Supreme Court precedent. The state’s decision to opt out of participation in Trump’s deportation agenda is sensible and legal. Lawmakers in the rest of the country who similarly adopt pro-immigrant policies should rest easy — Attorney General Sessions is on weak legal ground.

View comments (22)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

Not assisting is not the same as obstructing...this is the crux. Mr. Sessions shall fail in his attempt to force his draconian views down any States throat. STAES RIGHTS, BABY! How does that taste?

Anonymous

After reading the comments, I've come to believe that legal opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.

Anonymous

So true !
I never voted for these laws and never wanted DACA
The goverment of califorina can break off and go into ocean !!
Screw all these anti ice & pro DACA aholes
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP !!

Anonymous

The term illegal is not a debate. I can't stand Sessions, but Im so tired of people deflecting and illegals being allowed to have access to the same rights as legal citizens. People try for years to legally come into the US and do everything right, to be lumped with illegals who could care less about the Unites States.

Anonymous

The amendment is for imagrant workers not to protect career criminals they have some mexicans deported 3 times with murders on their sheet so when do these animals have time to work?
We need to stop protecting rapists & murders by these animals !! Build a wall give ICE a chance to stop illigals

Anonymous

The sanctuary cities will cave as soon as civil law suits begin to cash out for victims of criminal illegal immigrants living in those cities, protected by the local authorities who become liable for those crimes.
I would have the FBI take control of the local police forces in those cities and then allow ICE to do their thing.

Anonymous

I always try to be aware of situations in which pushing federal / state jurisdictions can be manipulated and used against either federal of state jurisdictions; for example in the case of federal lands in the state of Utah and other states. Where does ACLU step up on that one, and by that I mean my civil liberty to insist the health of the local and global (since corporation speech is demanding same such rights without, public discussion or debate ) environment, wildlife, clean air and water and the wise use of federal lands - I might include state lands in the same argument; for critical and essential civil rights for natural biological and human health- speech: whose civil rights we disregard at the peril of our own.

Anonymous

Every country has the right to decide which foreigners can remain within it's borders. These aren't immigrants. They are foreigners who sneaked in and are demanding that we disregard our immigration laws for them.

Larryhemmert

I for one believe that illegals caught within our borders need deported expeditiously. They should not be given drivers licenses on in state tuition. The anchor baby loophole needs removed. The nexus btwn invaders, gangs, cartels, drugs trafficking and violence is well documented. Invaders are generally the most ignorant slice of Mexico's society. Many are know criminals within Mexico. Our prisons and jails are full of the Mexicans and their spawn. The over burden our social systems. Enough is enough. Stop pretending that Mexicans have American rights and privileges.

Reader03

I'm okay with letting illegals come and stay; but only on a few conditions. I want to "stay off the grid," not pay income taxes, and get free college. If social security numbers could be donated, I would give it away. Wonder if the ACLU could help me with that?

Pages

Stay Informed