FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AB 937 I'ctge 14 This bill, unlike. the Arizona law at issue in Ari-onu v. UnitedSlalev, clean}, seeks to leave federal immigration enfincenment to federal official;. Far from attenmtxing to uswp federal duties related to invnigration, the bill seeks to rcurforec the tCLleral franuwork that prirvides state. with the power to determine whether or riot to use their resources to assist in federal immigation etiiirts, including whether to have public employees filnction as i<nunigration officers and/or assist umumugralion oflicu s. Federal law authori_es the Secretary, of Hun-rcltnd Security to enter into agreent�nts that delegate unmig ation powers to local poke. (8 U.S.C. Section 1357 (g).) But nothing requires states to drier ono such agreements with the federal govcrtnneirt. Of particular relevance to this bill, the 9"' Circuit held in U.S. v. California, .rupro. that the 10"' Amendment to the. U.S. Cirostinttion protects Californcr's right to control its own statc and local resources, nmcltlling state and local law enfin-cement resources. Specifically, the 9'' Circuit observed that the federal government cannot torce California to help its utnnigation cnfirrccnunt cffi)rts: SB 541my well 1rum ale the federal go Vernneln'i ]nningration enforcement effortti. However, whatever the wisdom of the wmderlying policy adopted by Califoria, that frustration is permissibL, bccause California has the rigJn, pcasuarn to the anti Conunandoering rule, toreliLtin from assisting with ledcral ellimrts.._ hi this context, the federal government... could not require Caliti)rnia's cooperation without miming afoul of the Tenth Arnendnrcnt. (U.S. v. California. supra, 921 Fad at f+90-91) Because states rued riot participate in federal inwligration enforcement. and because oftbe explicit non-pn cr 1ptIVC text and slnrcntre of Scction 1357 (g), above, this bill merely expresses the state's authority to determine that its public resources should be used for purposes other than assisurig will) invnigration enlorcemenl. Lay merely exercising this priority, die bfll clearly does not usurp federal authorily by "regulaling conduct in a field that Congress ... has determined nnlst be regulated by its exclusive governance" in a manner that would make it vulnerable to a field preemption challenge. Conflict Preernptkm: As described above, the bill has two main prohibitions (one ofwhich has two subparts). One, which happens to be the latter-, reads as firllows A stale or local agency or Court sball nut ttie nrnni�n-atiun statWs as a factor Lu deny orlu recommend denial ofprobation orparlicipalion in any diversion, rehabilitation, menial health program, or placement in a credit -carting prograIn or class, or to delel7nne custodial classification level, to deny mandatory supervision, or to lengthen the portion ol'sipervision served in Custody. All of the programs and purposes described by this language -- probation ... diveruon, rehabilitation. mental health program, or placewerrt in cz credit -earning program or chxas — are state and local programs and decisions. Decisions regarding such programs and placements, like decisi<ms `to determine custodial classification level, to deny mandatory -supervision, or to lengthen the portion ofsupevrimon " arc purely static and local maulers. Calilbtnia is allowed to prioritize the use of its resources on activities which serve the greatest need and further the host pressing interests of the state and its residents. (See Gregory v. Ash(roft, supra, 501 LI,S. al 457- 58.) Therefore, this provision does not raise any conflict preemption concenr.s. Tbc - 4 intelpi yewctit}frllvides as fi>llows. 21 — 3 5/4/2021