FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page 12 In order to avoid corfu+ion and provide the Le_r;islatnre and the public with as much flarity as po.s.sihle ahnirt how this worthy: hill affects and interacts with existing lay, , the author neap nvi.sh to amend the Values Ac t. rather than a neto t�latutori°scheme that addresses mam, of the same topics covered hp the Values Act, as this bill does in its L urrent jirnn_ PreemptionAnulysis - When Congress acts ender its cottstuutiuual powers, it tray preempt stale laws by one of [he following means: (1 ) an express preemption provision [hill "willidraw[s] specified powers from the States": (2) Yield precinixion that "precludes [States] fi-om rcgllathtg contlict in a field that ConSTess _ _ _ has deternnned nntst be regulated by its exCilL4ive governance'; or (3) contlict preemption, which occurs when either "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," or the "scatc law stands as an obstacic. to the accann3)lishment and execution of the Poll purposes and objectives of Congress_" (Ari-ona v. Chtited States(2012) 567 U.S. 387, 399 [uttcnlial quotation n-arks onvned].) Elm essPrecallrtion: The Only express provisions in federal law that [unit the abilu_y of states to enact larws dealing with arntvgration appear to be 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C.. 1644. The provisions are virvtaIly ide» ticaI. The only difrerence appears to be that Section 1 644 applies to states or local govcmin_nts, grid says llu;y cannot be prohibited froth sending or receiving imnnigration statics inlonrrauiun to 10E; whereas, Section 1373 states than lerlcral, Made, and local governments cannot be prohibted tiom sending or receiving Ofciti7enship or imnnigration stanis inlorrrraticn to or [from ICE. Given that the 9a1` Circuit Court of Appals only discussed Section 1373 in its evaluation of the Valtles Act, this analy-is will fi)Ct6 solely on Section 1373. Secholr 1373 prohibits .,talcs koin enacting laws or policies Hutt prohibit cooperation with and response to federal requests R)r immigration status inf)rmition: [A] Federal, Slate, or local govennarent entity Or oflicial may notProhibit, or in any way restrict, anv got'l'.r'nmcnt entity or official fi'orn sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naltlrali/ation Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." (8 U.S.C. 1373 (a) [cmphati added].) While Section 1373 limits state action to expressly prohibit one type of cooperation providing; nnlurrnatiun about itattnigration .,Lehi.,) with the federal govennnent, it clues not require any action on the part ofsteltes. When it ruled that the Values Act did not violate Section 1373, the 90' Circuit made two observations about state law. First, "SB 54 ... expressly permits the shariaig of I ml6rination regarding it person's citi/vnshil) or it IT sla[Ws I, and so does not appear to conflict with [Section] 1373." (U.S. v. Cali%wnia, supra. 921 1:.3d at 890 [euphasic ut original].) Second, the Values Act clues not expressly pruhrbit or in any wary rcstriet law enforcement authorities from shaving the particular type of information described by Section 1373. The 9re Circuit dud not specify how itnpurtaut either aspect of state law was in its ultirante decision, but only mentioned the felt aspect of state law (that the Values Act perrnirs [he sharing of intornnation) in passing, and discussed the second aspect at length. fhcretore, it is reasonable to assume chat the namr-c of the infornutiun at is,;uc in the Vahtcs Act was by far the most important reason firr the 9`' Circuit's holding that the Valens Act did not run afirul of Section 1373. The 9`' Circuit pointed Out in U.S. v. C alijarnia th it the information which the Values Act pro nnlor ]a'✓ic �ouncl btnut an nndividtktl, including, but nc inn i to, [he individtltl's he ss