Ninth Circuit Denies Trump's Bid to Block California's Immigration Laws
The decision leaves intact almost all the provisions in three statutes enacted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature to thwart the federal government's crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
April 18, 2019 at 03:55 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday largely affirmed a district court ruling that denied the Trump administration's request to block California laws limiting cooperation with federal enforcement officials.
The decision leaves intact almost all the provisions in three statutes—AB 103, and AB 450 and SB 54—enacted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature to thwart the federal government's crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
The laws authorize the attorney general to inspect immigrant detention facilities, require employers to notify workers of an upcoming inspection of their work-eligibility documents and limit the information jails and prisons share with immigration agents about undocumented inmates.
The U.S. Department of Justice, under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, argued that the laws violated the Supremacy Clause and asked U.S. District Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California to issue a preliminary injunction. Mendez refused, and the DOJ appealed.
“The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that AB 450's employee-notice provisions neither burden the federal government nor conflict with federal activities, and that any obstruction caused by SB 54 is consistent with California's prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment and the anticommandeering rule,” U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. Smith was joined by Judges Paul Watford and Andrew Hurwitz.
“We therefore affirm the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction as to these laws,” Smith said.
The panel also upheld Mendez's decision not to block state inspection of federal detention facilities. But the three judges reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for a provision of AB 103 that requires the attorney general to investigate “the circumstances” of why and how a detainee was apprehended and transferred to a holding facility.
That section of law “both discriminates against and impermissibly burdens the federal government,” Smith wrote.
In a statement, Attorney General Xavier Becerra applauded the ruling, which came on the same day the U.S. Justice Department released Robert Mueller III's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
“As much as all the attention is on whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, we continue to prove in California that the rule of law not only stands for something but that people cannot act outside of it,” Becerra said. “The Ninth circuit ruled in our favor today, demonstrating that the rights of states and the 10th amendment continue to thrive.”
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Becerra's office in February issued its first report on immigrant detention facilities under the new law. The report found that conditions “vary drastically within and across facilities throughout the state,” although there were common themes of prolonged periods of confinement, language barriers, difficulties accessing health care and troubles finding legal help.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling is posted here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
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 AllLitigators of the Week: Simpson Thacher and ACLU Team To Challenge Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
A Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Even With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 2AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 3New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
- 4Nordic Capital Plans to Acquire IP Management Solutions Provider Anaqua
- 5Criminalization of Homelessness Is Not the Solution
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