FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AB 937 P;ige 13 or work address' —was' not the same information addressed by Section 1373 ("information regarding the citizenship or immigration saattt5, lawful or unlawful, of any indivi(lual"). (U-S- v- California, sti -ti. 921 F.3d. at 891.) The urtortnation governed by Section 1373, oil the other hand, is 'nnann-ally understood as it reference to a person's lead classification raider federal law," and not arekrence to snore general utfitrni;atunn about an individual. (IbO.) Therefore, the court narrowly construed the meaning ol'Section 1373 Lit relation to a.,L<tLc htw restricting the disclosure ofpersonal nilimlittion. The mftmnation that this hill seeks to prohrlrit public agencies from sharing with intnigration officials appears to be the sarnrc intormation that the Vahucs Act prohibits law cntorccmcnt agereics from sharing: information aboui a detainee's release dare and personal intorniation about the detainee. Given that the Value Act's restrictions on disclosua'e of this inffrnmation were upheld, as exphured alcove, ill U.S. v. California. supra, it would appear likely [fiat this hill's restrictions on infi>rmition sharing would also survive an express preemption challenge beeaw4e it does not conflict with Section 1373. hurthemxire, even if the bill did vioble Section 1 373 by prohibiting public agencies f-om providing ICE with "inlormaiion regarding the eilizenship or immigration staves, latilul or tnnlawfill, ol'an_y individual," it could sell he upheld against a preemption challenge- Several federal district courts have riled that Section 1373 itself is unlawful. As the 9`11Circuit observed in loomolc. 19 of U-S- v- Cafi%ornia, while citing several district court decisions, "Because we agree with the district court's IX011clu6ion, we need not address whether [Section] 1373 is itself tlnlawfll, though we note that Various district courts have questioned its eonstialtionality." (United Slates v- Calilornia, supra, at 893, tin- 19-) One of the district cow-[ cases mentioned in footnote 19, for example, tound that Section 1373 volstcs the anti-conmmandecrinn principles: Section 1373 contravenes the idea that liberly is best served by the Constitution's intended division of "authority between federal and state government', for the prolection of individuals Citations -I DO.1 argues that Section 1373 requires States and local governments to allow the disclosure of an immigrant'- address, location irrhirmation, release date, date of birth, kalnilial Status, contact information, and any other uuorination that would help ltderal intmigr-alion officials perform then- duties. [Citations.] fo conthly with that nlueipretalion, California and San Francisco would nccd to submit control of their own officials' communications to the Icdend government and Iorego passing laves contrary to Section 1373- lhcy would also need to allocate their limited law cntorccnncnt rc,"Ources to exchange irltirrmatiiro with the t &I'al govemnlcrrt whenever requested instead of to the essential services (like enfiucing generally applicable crinninal laws) they believe would most benefit their respective conitim nitics. (Cirr & Cti. of.San Francisco v- .Sessions (N.D.Cal. 2018) 349 F. SurPP- 3d 924, 950-951 [uglheld in pan, overruled in part by (City & O.Y. of San Francisco v..Sessions (N.D.Cai 2018) 349 F. Supp. 3d 924J.) Field Preemption: lie Supreme Coma and other federal covets have held that state laws seeking to regulate immiaatunn on the state level --as Arizona dui when it passed laws [flat (1) created a state -law crime tin- being unlawfully present in the ihnited States; (2) mated a state -law crimc for working or seeking work while not authorised to do so; and (3) authorized war,zntless ancsts of alicns believed to be removable hom rile United Statcs--anti ptecrnpted by tederal immigration law and its ohicctic cs. (.,cc Arizona v. United States, supra, 567 U-S. at 410.) City Council 21 — 32 5/4/2021