FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A-B 937 Page 8 A 2019 decision by the 9`t' Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lcIgitirnacy of the Values act - (US' n_ California (2019) 921 Fad 86i) The i1-S- Suyn-ente Onrt stdxequernly declined the oppormltity to review the case. The case was tint heard it tedeml district court. 7'he Distict C.Onrt held that the Values Act was not preempted by federal law- "Califnniai s decision not to assist Icdcral immigration enlbrcement in its endeavors is not an -obstacle' to that enfrxcement ethxt. rThe United Stmes'j ragunient that SB 54 luakes immigration etiforcenent far more burdensome bed due question: norc burdensome than what? The laws make enlirrcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement prodded intnigration officers with their assistance- But rcfsing to lolp is not the sank as i ipeditg- if such were the rule, oWacle preemption could be. used ro conm;rndeer state resources and subvert tenth Amendment principles." (California L. 314 F. Supp. 3d at 1104.) l'hc case was appealed to the 9"' District Court ofAppeal which upheld the decision ofthc district court rcg m-ding the Vahtcs Act- The 9"' District Court of Appcal stated, 'Even if SB 54 obstructs federal immigration aifin-cemait, the United States position that such obstruction is uulawfid rams directly atirul of the Tenth Amendment and the artticommandeering rule-" (US_ r- California, at 888-) The United Slates' prmnary an*Ltmclu autinst SB 54 was that I lirrc•.es Cederal authorities to expend seater resources to enforce iumigration ktws. llowever, the 911' District Court of Apical lounid Ihal would be the case reeardless of SB 54. since Calilonm would still retain the ability to decline to administer the izderal program under the anlicommandeering rule. Under the anriconunlandeering rule Congress cannot issue direct orders t state legislatures and vernits a state to refuse to adopt federal uohc•.ies- The court ltekl dint even it the absence of SH 54. Congress could not "impress into its service —and at no cost to itself —the police officers of the 50 States." (Id. at 889.) fhc 9`t' District Cows ofAppeal noted that: "Federal schemes are inevitahly frmsn-ated when states opt not to participate in f deral nroerams or enturoement ettoiu. But the choice of state to ref ain from participation cannot tie invalid under the doctrine of obstacle preengttion where, as here, it retains the rit*jnt of refitsaL Extending conflict or obstacle preemption to SB 54 would, in cfLct, dicLtlefl what a state le-fislature nxty and n-Uty not do.' lfur•nhr. 138 S- Ct- at 1478, because it would imply thirt a stags otherwise ltwfid decision motto assist federal autholvics is made t1111awful when it is codiLd as state ltw." (Id- at 890.) This bail would expand on the scope of the Values Act by extending the prolrbition on cooueration with imrnuTation authorities to all state and local agencies- The reasoning behind the 9"' Disb ict's holding in U.S. r. California would likely continue to apply to the extlansion in scope- Howc%/m this bill potctritlly cotillicts with existing lederal statutes require specific types orconnnrulication on innnio-ation status to be exchanged between immigration authorities and state and local entities. t he Values Act specifically allowed law atft>rccnrent to comply with two frdcral statutes ..,r .., :. .,..:.... .«s-..,.,...,, .,t (v rr c r l z;j, AJ .t 441 .J 4 tr c r 1444 ) -n,..P,. Qj Mtjgg6Ar A)it a state and local government fi-orrR%-Falr way restricting any ,ew"QAr