US Sues California Over Immigration Laws
The lawsuit alleges certain provisions in three recently-passed California laws violate the Constitution's supremacy clause.
March 06, 2018 at 09:00 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of California Tuesday night, challenging provisions in three immigration-related state laws as unconstitutional, according to senior Justice Department officials.
The lawsuit alleges portions of the laws are pre-empted by federal law, and therefore violate the Constitution's supremacy clause. In addition to the state, the lawsuit will be filed against California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The DOJ will ask for a preliminary injunction against the laws.
The challenged laws include SB 54, the so-called “sanctuary state” law that limits state law enforcement interactions and information sharing with immigration authorities; AB 450, which bars private employers from cooperating with immigration agents in certain ways; and AB 103, which allows the state attorney general to inspect federal immigration detention facilities. Brown signed each of the bills last year.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to formally announce the lawsuit in a speech in Sacramento on Wednesday morning, at the California Peace Officers Association's annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day.
“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 is expected to tell the group, according to prepared remarks. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”
Brown said on Twitter Tuesday that Sessions had “come to California to further divide and polarize America.”
“Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don't work here. SAD!!!” the governor tweeted.
Becerra also tweeted in response: “No matter what happens in Washington, #California will stay the course and enforce all our laws and protect all our people. That's how we keep our communities safe. #Immigration.”
At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don't work here. SAD!!!
— Jerry Brown (@JerryBrownGov) March 7, 2018
On a call with reporters, Becerra said the state's laws work “in concert” with federal laws, and that the state “stands on strong legal footing.”
“States and local jurisdictions have the right to determine which policies are best for their communities,” Becerra said. “Many throughout the nation have found that public safety is better served by focusing their time as law enforcement officials and their resources on combating dangerous criminals rather than on immigration enforcement.”
When he signed SB 54 into law, Brown said in a signing statement that the legislation did not “prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way.”
The complaint will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento. DOJ officials said the venue was chosen because the state capital is there. The decision to file the lawsuit was made after a serious review of the state's laws, the officials said, and other jurisdictions could face similar actions pending the outcome of ongoing reviews.
The lawsuit will be handled by lawyers in the DOJ's Civil Division, as well as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California, McGregor Scott. The nominee to lead the Civil Division, Jody Hunt, is also expected to have his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The division is currently led by an acting assistant attorney general, Chad Readler.
Brown and Becerra are vocal critics of President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. The state is currently engaged in litigation against the administration's “sanctuary city” policy, which withholds grant money from states and jurisdictions that do not comply with certain information-sharing requirements. Just this week, U.S. District Judge William Orrick denied the state's request for a preliminary injunction against the policy.
The government's lawsuit claims the state laws are obstacles to the government's execution of provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and are invalid because they seek to directly regulate the federal government.
Under President Barack Obama, the DOJ sued Arizona over that state's 2010 immigration law. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down portions of the law, but left in place its most controversial provision, which allowed police to check the immigration status of people they detained. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the government has “significant power to regulate immigration.”
“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” the justices wrote.
Read the complaint here:
Cheryl Miller contributed to this report.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute read4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute read'Meet and Confer': Judge Seeks Speedy Resolution in Maryland Key Bridge Litigation
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250