U.S. Justice Department sues California over 'sanctuary' policies

By Sarah N. Lynch and Dan Levine

 

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions listens to remarks at an opioid summit being held at the White House in Washington, U.S., March 1, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California over so-called "sanctuary" policies that try to protect illegal immigrants against deportation, ramping up a confrontation over whether local police should enforce federal law.

 

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in federal court in Sacramento, the California state capital, takes aim at three state laws passed last year that the Justice Department contends violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

The issue of illegal immigrants has become increasingly heated since Donald Trump became president last year and signalled that he planned to target a wider swath of people for deportation.

 

Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has made combating illegal immigration one of his top priorities since taking over the helm of the Justice Department in February 2017. A key part of that effort involves a crackdown on primarily Democrat-governed cities and states that Sessions claims are "sanctuaries" that protect illegal immigrants from deportation.

 

Sessions is expected to discuss the lawsuit during a speech on Wednesday morning in Sacramento. The Justice Department lawsuit cites a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the "Supremacy Clause," under which federal laws trump state laws.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Tuesday said law enforcement in the state is focused on public safety, not deportation. The Trump administration's legal arguments are similar to those it has made in other cases, he said, and his office is prepared to address them.

"We've seen this 'B' rated movie before," Becerra said on a call with reporters.

 

Brown in October signed into law a bill that prevents police from inquiring about immigration status and curtails law enforcement cooperation with immigration officers.

 

"The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you," Sessions plans to tell a group of law enforcement officers on Wednesday, according to prepared remarks seen by Reuters.

 

Early into his tenure, Trump signed an executive order that sought to block municipalities that failed to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities from receiving federal grant funding.

 

However, the Justice Department's attempts to implement the order to date have been stymied by lawsuits in the federal courts in Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

 

At issue is whether sanctuary cities are violating a federal law that requires them to share information about people they arrest with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

 

One case is now on appeal, after a federal judge in San Francisco blocked Trump's executive order to block funding to sanctuary cities.

Similar kinds of cases are under way in other parts of the country, including a case on appeal in Chicago after a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction barring the government from blocking grant money typically used to help local police combat violent crime and help victims.

 

The Justice Department's lawsuit on Tuesday against California targets three state laws. One of them, known as Assembly Bill 450, prohibits private employers in California from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials.

 

A second law, Senate Bill 54, prevents state and local law enforcement from giving federal immigration officials information about when they intend to release an illegal immigrant from their custody.

 

The third law empowers the state to inspect federal immigration detention centres.

 

The Justice Department filing says all three laws improperly attempt to regulate federal immigration at the state level. The department also plans to seek a court order from a judge to temporarily block the state from enforcing the laws.

 

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Leslie Adler and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-07

Going to SCOTUS.

California is where I'm from, and, it is quickly & increasingly being a great place to be from....

 

What a mess....

Not all cases are good cases, but this is a good one as are most "states rights" cases. Whichever way it turns out, the SC (which is where I'm sure it's headed) ruling should make for some very interesting reading and will have far ranging importance well into the future.

Funny how are the Republicans always scream states rights until they're in control of the federal govt and then they don't want states rights to implement their policies. I think the word I'm looking for is 'hypocrites' ...

2 minutes ago, Rama said:

Funny how are the Republicans always scream states rights until they're in control of the federal govt and then they don't want states rights to implement their policies. I think the word I'm looking for is 'hypocrites' ...

 

Yeah, but the federal govt. has a pretty good prima facie case here given that it is the federal government that is charged with immigration and otherwise "protecting" the nation's borders. Should be interesting.

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, but the federal govt. has a pretty good prima facie case here given that it is the federal government that is charged with immigration and otherwise "protecting" the nation's borders. Should be interesting.

The federal govt is charges with a lot of duties. Does that mean it has the right to dragoon the services of state employees into its service?  

The Supreme Court in Printz vs. the United States voted by a 5-4 vote not.

 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZC1.html

What makes this particularly ironic is that it was a 5-4 decision with conservatives siding in favor of the plaintiffs.

In passing I noted that in 2012 the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Govt. couldn't withhold other funds in order to force state to provide Medicaid as stipulated by Obamacare.But the same token, you can't deny other funds to states just because they refuse to cooperate with the immigration service. 

Now that I've actually gone ahead and looked at a brief explanation of the bills in question,  which I should have done in the first place, I've got to say that 2 of the 3 provisions do look unconstitutional. One makes it a crime for a business owner to help federal agents find and detain undocumented aliens and the other gives California the authority to inspect Federal detention centers. I don't think either of those provisions will or should pass muster..

Quite sure these days too many government 'wanna bes' see illegal immigrants as potential future voters and not illegal immigrants  !