‘The Trump administration suffered a legal defeat at the Ninth Circuit on Thursday as a panel denied its attempt to prevent California from implementing sanctuary laws meant to protect residents from federal immigration enforcement officials.
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that a federal judge ruled correctly in denying the federal government preliminary injunctions that would have prevented three sanctuary laws from going into effect while their legality was being determined in federal court.
“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 10th Amendment and the anticommandeering rule,” U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote for the panel. “We also affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction as to those provisions of AB 103 that duplicate inspection requirements otherwise mandated under California law.”
However, the panel found one provision of AB 103, which mandates the state attorney general to periodically inspect immigrant-detention centers to ensure conditions and standards of care are sufficient and due process standards are being followed, unfairly and impermissibly burdens the federal government – violating the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The panel stopped short of siding with the federal government and instead asked the judge in the case to reconsider the extent of the government’s “economic or operational burden” for the extra inspections AB 103 calls for.
Regarding SB 54, which the panel recognized as “the most contentious of the three challenged laws” since it restricts state and local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agents except where certain violent crimes and felonies are involved, the panel ruled it passes constitutional muster.’
Bulk of California Sanctuary Laws Upheld by Ninth Circuit
There was a time when actual conservatives would concur with such a ruling as a reaffirmation of states’ rights and limiting Federal authority.
But as a consequence of the right’s hypocrisy, fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate, no such concurrence will be forthcoming.
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that a federal judge ruled correctly in denying the federal government preliminary injunctions that would have prevented three sanctuary laws from going into effect while their legality was being determined in federal court.
“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 10th Amendment and the anticommandeering rule,” U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote for the panel. “We also affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction as to those provisions of AB 103 that duplicate inspection requirements otherwise mandated under California law.”
However, the panel found one provision of AB 103, which mandates the state attorney general to periodically inspect immigrant-detention centers to ensure conditions and standards of care are sufficient and due process standards are being followed, unfairly and impermissibly burdens the federal government – violating the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The panel stopped short of siding with the federal government and instead asked the judge in the case to reconsider the extent of the government’s “economic or operational burden” for the extra inspections AB 103 calls for.
Regarding SB 54, which the panel recognized as “the most contentious of the three challenged laws” since it restricts state and local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agents except where certain violent crimes and felonies are involved, the panel ruled it passes constitutional muster.’
Bulk of California Sanctuary Laws Upheld by Ninth Circuit
There was a time when actual conservatives would concur with such a ruling as a reaffirmation of states’ rights and limiting Federal authority.
But as a consequence of the right’s hypocrisy, fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate, no such concurrence will be forthcoming.
