USCA9 Mostly Affirms in US v. Cal. "Sanctuary" Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today announced its decision in United States v. California, No. 18-16496. The federal government sued California over a package of bills designed to hamper efforts to enforce federal immigration laws. CJLF supported a portion of the argument, and the United States prevailed as to that part. See this post last July. California did not appeal that portion.

The district court ruled in favor of California on the remainder, and the United States appealed. The court of appeals reversed as to one portion. AB 103 provides for inspection of state, local, and private facilities used to house immigration detainees (i.e., all except the federal government's own facilities). Inspecting for health and safety on the same basis as other detention facilities is okay, but requirements that apply only to federal operations and authorize looking into "due process" and "the circumstances around their apprehension" crosses the line on intergovernmental immunity. The panel relies on a Supreme Court decision two months ago, Dawson v. Steager for the proposition that there is no de minimis exception to the anti-discrimination aspect of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.

The district court was also affirmed in its denial of injunctions of laws (1) requiring notification to employees of inspection of verification records (the part of AB 450 the district court did not enjoin); and (2) the limits on state and local law enforcement's cooperation with immigration authorities.

The last provision is the most controversial one. CJLF did not join in the challenge to it because, in my opinion, it fits in the category of laws famously described by Justice Scalia as "stupid but constitutional," i.e., not in conflict with the federal constitution. Whether the California Legislature can forbid chartered local governments from protecting their people from alien criminals by cooperating with their deportation is a pending question of state constitutional law. See this post on a state superior court decision that they cannot.
USCA9 Mostly Affirms in US v. Cal. "Sanctuary" Case curated from Crime and Consequences Blog