The Trump Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday night against California, saying three recently-passed state laws were deliberately interfering with federal immigration policies.

It marked the latest legal and political confrontation with the nation's most populous state, which the federal government says has repeatedly stood in the way of its plans to step up enforcement actions in the workplace and against criminal aliens.

"The Department of Justice and the Trump Administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies," Attorney General Jeff Sessions was expected to tell California law enforcement officers on Wednesday. "We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America."

The state's Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, fired back: “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!!!”


Federal officials are seeking an injunction to immediately block enforcement of the three California laws, each enacted within the past year.

One of those laws offers additional worker protections against federal immigration enforcement actions. Senior Justice Department officials have said it's prevented companies from voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Employers are mandated under the law to demand ICE agents present a warrant or subpoena before entering certain areas of the premises, or when accessing some employee records.

Some companies have complained they've felt torn between trying to comply with seemingly contradictory state and federal statutes, since penalties for non-compliance can be steep from both entities.

Another state law dubbed known by critics as the "sanctuary state" bill protects immigrants without legal residency by limiting state and municipal cooperation with the feds, including what information can be shared about illegal-immigrant inmates.

A third law gives state officials the power to monitor and inspect immigrant detention facilities either run directly by, or contracted through, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Justice Department has said it's confident the Constitution's Supremacy Clause gives it broad authority to supersede state laws that it says interfere with its immigration enforcement obligations.

Still, state officials in the past have cited the 10th Amendment’s guarantee of states not being compelled to enforce federal laws.

“We’ve seen this B-rated movie before. So we’re not totally surprised,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in response to the new lawsuit.

The Justice Department is also reviewing Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf's decision to warn of an immigration sweep in advance, which ICE said allowed hundreds of immigrants to escape detention. “Oakland is a city of immigrants. We will continue to exercise our legal right to exist as a sanctuary city. We will continue to inform all residents about their Constitutional rights, and we will continue to support California’s sanctuary status,” the Democratic mayor responded.

An estimated 2.5 million immigrants are believed to be in California illegally. In the most recent figures, ICE has reported about 16 percent of its enforcement apprehensions take place in that state.

The latest legal action by the Trump administration is part of an aggressive push to enforce existing immigration laws, with Sessions in previous remarks citing a porous U.S. border with Mexico, and the threat of criminal activity by immigrant gangs.

Federal officials repeatedly have cited the case of Kate Steinle, shot to death by an illegal alien and seven-time felon in San Francisco, one of 35 communities in the state declaring itself a "sanctuary city."

The Justice Department in January threatened California and other states with subpoenas and a loss of grant money for repeatedly failing to respond to requests for immigration compliance under a federal law known as Section 1373.

Federal officials would not say whether other states were at risk of similar lawsuits over their alleged non-compliance with immigration laws.

A coordinated ICE enforcement action last month on businesses in the Los Angeles area netted 212 people arrested for violating federal immigration laws, 88 percent of whom were convicted criminals, officials said.

Link

The complaint is found here.

JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

Good lord I hate the powers that be in CA.

It's one thing to enable illegal immigration. And sanctuary cities.

But to actively aid / abet illegal immigrants who are convicted felons -- how on God's good earth do they justify that?

Being an illegal immigrant deserves no special protection especially for convicted felons. Holy fuck I'm tired of liberals. Fucking crazy people.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

I suppose if the court issues the injunction and declares the statutes unconstitutional as prayed for, Gov. Moonbeam and the state AG won’t say “gee, I guess we were wrong and we’re sorry!” Losers are seldom convinced of their position’s wrongness just because some judge says so. It might make it less safe to aid and abet illegals. Maybe the feds will have a better hand to secure cooperation.

Sessions took it to 'em in the press conference.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

I suppose if the court issues the injunction and declares the statutes unconstitutional as prayed for, Gov. Moonbeam and the state AG won’t say “gee, I guess we were wrong and we’re sorry!” Losers are seldom convinced of their position’s wrongness just because some judge says so. It might make it less safe to aid and abet illegals. Maybe the feds will have a better hand to secure cooperation.

Not just illegals. 88% convicted felons?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

I suppose if the court issues the injunction and declares the statutes unconstitutional as prayed for, Gov. Moonbeam and the state AG won’t say “gee, I guess we were wrong and we’re sorry!” Losers are seldom convinced of their position’s wrongness just because some judge says so. It might make it less safe to aid and abet illegals. Maybe the feds will have a better hand to secure cooperation.

And therein lies the rub. Even if the judge holds completely for the federal government, I see nothing punitive that can be done to those in California who completely ignore it and keep doing what they're doing. Hell, activist judges have even blocked the Federal government from withholding grant money from states who are actively breaking federal law. As with everything having to do with liberals, this whole thing is a cluster.

JALLEN, can you summarize the 2010 Obama administration suit against Arizona after which the courts established the federal govt DOES have power over the states on immigration law?

The Fox News Special Report mentioned this, but none of them were lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

I suppose if the court issues the injunction and declares the statutes unconstitutional as prayed for, Gov. Moonbeam and the state AG won’t say “gee, I guess we were wrong and we’re sorry!” Losers are seldom convinced of their position’s wrongness just because some judge says so. It might make it less safe to aid and abet illegals. Maybe the feds will have a better hand to secure cooperation.

And therein lies the rub. Even if the judge holds completely for the federal government, I see nothing punitive that can be done to those in California who completely ignore it and keep doing what they're doing. Hell, activist judges have even blocked the Federal government from withholding grant money from states who are actively breaking federal law. As with everything having to do with liberals, this whole thing is a cluster.

If the US wins the case, it will be a great legal victory. Even if California thumbs its nose at the outcome, as liberals often do, it is stll valuable to rack up the precedent. This was one of the silver linings of the Obama administration. We got numerous SCOTUS precedents restricting the power of the executive branch - many of them unanimous decisions.

Liberals play the long game, incrementally scoring points towards their agenda. Conservatives have to do the same thing. Little by little, these legal precedents box in the liberals and over time, the more the liberals overreach, the more tools we will have to swat them down.

I do think it is funny how the governor reacted to the suit, calling it a declaration of war and a reign of terror. Hyperbole much, bro?

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
JALLEN, in all seriousness, what do you think can really come out of this suit that would change anything?

I suppose if the court issues the injunction and declares the statutes unconstitutional as prayed for, Gov. Moonbeam and the state AG won’t say “gee, I guess we were wrong and we’re sorry!” Losers are seldom convinced of their position’s wrongness just because some judge says so. It might make it less safe to aid and abet illegals. Maybe the feds will have a better hand to secure cooperation.

And therein lies the rub. Even if the judge holds completely for the federal government, I see nothing punitive that can be done to those in California who completely ignore it and keep doing what they're doing. Hell, activist judges have even blocked the Federal government from withholding grant money from states who are actively breaking federal law. As with everything having to do with liberals, this whole thing is a cluster.

If the US wins the case, it will be a great legal victory. Even if California thumbs its nose at the outcome, as liberals often do, it is stll valuable to rack up the precedent. This was one of the silver linings of the Obama administration. We got numerous SCOTUS precedents restricting the power of the executive branch - many of them unanimous decisions.

Liberals play the long game, incrementally scoring points towards their agenda. Conservatives have to do the same thing. Little by little, these legal precedents box in the liberals and over time, the more the liberals overreach, the more tools we will have to swat them down.

I do think it is funny how the governor reacted to the suit, calling it a declaration of war and a reign of terror. Hyperbole much, bro?

I suppose every victory is a major one but these are just whack-a-moles as the issues can be dialed all over the place, like 2d Amendment litigation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
whack-a-moles

All Democrat legislation

If the DOJ wins the initial round, this will have to go through the 9th Circus when Kalifornistan appeals

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
JALLEN, can you summarize the 2010 Obama administration suit against Arizona after which the courts established the federal govt DOES have power over the states on immigration law?

The Fox News Special Report mentioned this, but none of them were lawyers.

I’m not sure I can, but perusing this may be helpful.

How an Obama-Administration Precedent May Doom California’s Effort to Make Itself a ‘Sanctuary State’

Link

quote:

....The state's Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, fired back: “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!!!”...

I am speechless at the magnitude of that overt lie. Brown is the one dividing and polarizing here, and such political. And the more outlandish a political stunt, the more likely it will succeed in CA.

The Trump administration sued California in a federal district court late Tuesday over its “sanctuary city” designation, arguing federal immigration law preempts three of the state’s laws.

The Department of Justice noted in a statement one of the three laws prohibits private employees from “voluntarily cooperating with immigration officials” and requires employers to give employees advance notice of a potential worksite enforcement inspection.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, named a defendant in the suit, said after the law became effective Jan. 1 that he would “prosecute those who violate [Assembly Bill 450] by voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) efforts.” He later told employers that under the new law they can’t voluntarily grant ICE agents “physical access to nonpublic areas of the worksite or to employee records” without triggering legal penalties.

The second California law challenged bars state and local law enforcement officials from informing federal immigration agents of the release date of criminal aliens and prohibits state employees from transferring criminal aliens to federal custody, except in narrow circumstances. This one, Senate Bill 54, also became effective on Jan. 1.

The third bill, Assembly Bill 103 adopted June 27 of last year, authorized the California AG to inspect immigration detention facilities in the state to examine the “due process provided” immigration detainees, and “the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility.” This law also requires detention facilities to provide state officials access to confidential federal records.

The DOJ argues in its complaint the three laws — AB 450, SB 54, and AB 103 — conflict with federal immigration law and are thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. With the complaint, the DOJ filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to pause enforcement of the California statutes until the lawsuit is played out in court.

The case was assigned to Judge John A. Mendez, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush and confirmed to the serve on the Eastern District of California court in 2008. The parties have been ordered to file a stipulated briefing schedule by Friday, but absent agreement the court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date.

The lawsuit is but the latest effort by the Trump administration to combat the chaos caused by sanctuary cities. The DOJ in August of last year first attempted to pressure sanctuary cities to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies when it updated the conditions imposed on state and local governments seeking federal funds through the Byrne JAG grant program.

However, Chicago, which has received millions of dollars in funding, “including $33 million to purchase nearly 1,000 police cruisers,” challenged the DOJ’s move in federal court and obtained a preliminary injunction in September, 2017, from a Chicago-based district court judge, enjoining enforcement of the condition on a nationwide basis. The DOJ immediately appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit and is currently waiting a decision on the merits.

The DOJ’s next tack took the form of a demand in late January to twenty-three “sanctuary” jurisdictions, requesting “additional documentation to ensure those cities, counties, and states were complying with federal law.” This effort made news when high-profile sanctuary cities, such as Chicago and New York, boycotted a meeting with Trump to discuss the cities’ crumbling infrastructure that had been scheduled for later the same day. Yesterday, an official with the DOJ confirmed that all 23 jurisdictions have responded to the request and that the DOJ is reviewing the submitted documentation on a rolling basis.

The DOJ’s lawsuit against California, however, will likely prove more effective than its attempts to withhold Byrne JAG grant funding — and for that the the Trump administration can thank former President Barak Obama whose challenge to Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” established Supreme Court precedent validating the current DOJ’s position.

In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court made two points clear in an opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. First, the federal government “has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.” And second, “that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” and “under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law.” The Court then explained that federal law preempts state law where Congress expressly withdrew “specified powers from the State” or “so pervasively” regulated an area of the law that it “left no room for the States to supplement it,” or where the state law conflicts with federal law. Applying these well-established principles of preemption, the Supreme Court struck down three of Arizona’s provisions.

The Arizona holding will govern the DOJ’s current case against California, and it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which all three California statutes will survive. As the Court in Arizona made clear, state statutes that conflict with a federal law are preempted, and, “This includes cases where ‘compliance with both federal and state regulation is a physical impossibility,’ and those instances where the challenged state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.’”

California, and other sanctuary cities and states, seek to obstruct the federal government in its execution of federal immigration law. While the Obama Administration condoned this conduct, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made clear with this lawsuit that his DOJ will not tolerate it. “ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law,” Sessions told the California Peace Officers’ Association yesterday. “California cannot forbid them or obstruct them in doing their jobs. California is using every power it has — and some it doesn’t — to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them,” he told the officers, before thanking them for their service and assuring them of the Trump Administration’s support.

We should know soon whether the federal courts will agree, or if they too will frustrate federal law enforcement efforts.

Link